The Wolf said:What, according to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, are the heresy's of the Catholic Church?
It would be great if you could say why as well and put it in bullit points.
Thanks
Actually, this was ruled on by the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which the bishop of Rome signed, as well. So, it's a heresy on the theological level because it was stated as such in an Ecumenical Council, on top of the authority issues.PeterTheAleut said:Ultimately, even the other of the most divisive issues between RC and EO, the Filioque, is divisive (AISI) because of the authority the papacy has taken to himself to override even the decisions of Ecumenical Councils.
I know that some Orthodox actually recognize two later councils (one of them involving St. Gregory Palamas and the debate over the Essence and Energies of God and the hesychastic movement) to be the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils, but this recognition is by no means universal within Orthodoxy.Bizzlebin said:Actually, this was ruled on by the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which the bishop of Rome signed, as well. So, it's a heresy on the theological level because it was stated as such in an Ecumenical Council, on top of the authority issues.
It was when all the Patriarchs and their Synods signed a paper agreeing it was. There has been no other official ruling to the contrary, as far as I know, from any canonical Orthodox Church.PeterTheAleut said:I know that some Orthodox actually recognize two later councils (one of them involving St. Gregory Palamas and the debate over the Essence and Energies of God and the hesychastic movement) to be the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils, but this recognition is by no means universal within Orthodoxy.
PeterTheAleut said:
- Papal supremacy
- Papal infallibility
Yeah. I was about to start a list earlier today, then after it got going, I decided it would be too big an undertakingAsteriktos said:They were just starting with the easy ones. 8)
But Orthodox believe in the Assumption of the Virgin Mary too!! Unless there is some subtle aspect that is different that I am not aware of.....Asteriktos said:There's also purgatory, the filioque, the assumption of Mary (which is an issue because it is now dogma), the Immaculate conception, supererogatory works, created grace, and so on. They were just starting with the easy ones. 8)
The reason is because they dogmatized it. It involves the dichotomy some Orthodox make between Holy Tradition and dogma. Of course, most Orthodox don't seem to have any problem with it, as it is almost universally held in Orthodoxy, as far as I have heard.zebu said:But Orthodox believe in the Assumption of the Virgin Mary too!! Unless there is some subtle aspect that is different that I am not aware of.....
1. Beginning with Purgatory....why do we Orthodox pray for the dead?Asteriktos said:There's also purgatory, the filioque, the assumption of Mary (which is an issue because it is now dogma), the Immaculate conception, supererogatory works, created grace, and so on. They were just starting with the easy ones. 8)
1. Orthodox pray for the dead so that it may help them in some way. There is not much more said that is "universally accepted" beyond that. Purgatory is different because it deals with expiation because of temporal guilt.Mother Anastasia said:1. Beginning with Purgatory....why do we Orthodox pray for the dead?
3. And what is the problem of her Immaculate Conception? Was Christ to incarnate into the body of one still carrying the stain of original sin? How could the Spotless One, do such a thing?
If He is going to perform the miracle of the Virgin Birth, why would he NOT grant the graces in accord with Baptism, Preemptively to prepare this abode??
I see her immaculate conception as well as her assumption as being the most natural way for the Triune God to proceed and set the precedents in motion that would ultimately be the very life of the believer and the Church.
4. Supererogatory works, I am not familiar with this concept.
5. Created grace, is another one I am unfamiliar with.
Thank you.
Probably because papacy and filioque came first before the others. And in truth, it is easier (at least imho to get around the view of salvation, grace, etc.) whereas the Romans have backed themself into a corner with papal infallibility.Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church is the papacy, and things like uncreated vs created grace, the filioque, and the Orthodox view of the crucifixion in salvation are mere afterthoughts. To me, those things are much bigger than how much power some guy has.
Well, the attitude of the soul is very important, for this is what determines whether a person experiences joy or anger in the life to come. Prayers in some way assist the soul in coming closer to God and getting over these issues. And yes, it does take a LOT of time, even moreso when one is passed on.Mother Anastasia said:It is still quite vague to me, how Orthodox prayers help them? My own personal understanding was that an attitude must be ironed out so that the soul is without wrinkles. That this takes time and opportunity for new decisions that will reform the attitudes of the soul to make it conformed to Christ, that it may enter eternal happiness. I have a hard time connecting with expiation, it seems so punitive.
In the Orthodox faith, what then is the purpose of Baptism if not to erase the stain of original sin?
Mother Anastasia said:Are these issues (and resulting repercussions) the only issues??
Regarding the Immaculate Conception....Mother Anastasia said:1.  Beginning with Purgatory....why do we Orthodox pray for the dead?
2.  The Assumption of Mary....what is the problem here?  Her life is an allegory for the life
of the faithful, why then (not even entering into the consideration of her sufferings), should she not be given the preemptive grace of assumption that is to be the reward of the faithful?
In the light of the Sovereignty of Almighty God, is it unfitting, that  His most perfect creation
be given this prerogative as an example to us and what we have to look forward to if we are faithful as she was and is faithful?
3.  And what is the problem of her Immaculate Conception?  Was Christ to incarnate into the body of one still carrying the stain of original sin?  How could the Spotless One, do such a thing?
If He is going to perform the miracle of the Virgin Birth, why would he NOT grant the graces in accord with Baptism, Preemptively to prepare this abode??
I see her immaculate conception as well as her assumption as being the most natural way for the Triune God to proceed and set the precedents in motion that would ultimately be the very life of the believer and the Church.
4. Supererogatory works, I am not familiar with this concept.
5. Created grace, is another one I am unfamiliar with.
Thank you.
PeterTheAleut said:
I'm afraid that many of us who respond to this thread will only proclaim every Orthodox doctrine and practice to be correct (which doesn't cause me any problem) and declare every difference in doctrine and practice within the RC church to be heresy simply because it isn't part of our Tradition (which does cause me a problem).
We hold the doctrine of Original Sin in the sense that we believe that Adam and Eve's sin was the original one, yes, but that is about as far as it goes.augustin717 said:However, we, the Orthodox, still hold the dogma of the Original Sin, as stated in the canons of the Council of Carthage (418), later recieved by the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople; the said dogma wasn't even an issue between the East and the West until very recently. Growing up in an Orthodox country I've always been taught that the Holy Baptism washes away the Original ("Ancestral", how we call it in Romanian) sin.
We share in the consequences, but not the sin itself. It has often been called the "ancestral curse." Even the Bible establshed the principle:augustin717 said:We also believe that we share in that first sin, in some way.
We had religion classes in school there, and that is how we were taught by the parish priest.
That is not to say that our parish priest is the ultimate theological authority, but just to get an idea what the a regular Orthodox priest teaches his flock, in a non-polemical environment.
They cannot enter without Christ, of course, but there is not a definitive stance that they are without Him. In fact, a lot of the Fathers I have read seem to think they go right to heaven, and that God is with them.augustin717 said:But those that die without having been baptized, even the babes, is generally taught that they cannot inherit God's Kingdom, being severed from Christ.
There seems to be some substantial difference of opinion in Orthodoxy over this issue. I for one favor the Council of Carthage and Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople.augustin717 said:However, we, the Orthodox, still hold the dogma of the Original Sin, as stated in the canons of the Council of Carthage (418), later received by the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople; the said dogma wasn't even an issue between the East and the West until very recently. Growing up in an Orthodox country I've always been taught that the Holy Baptism washes away the Original ("Ancestral", how we call it in Romanian) sin.
I'm curious as to what you make of the passages which say the opposite?"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16)
Well.... the only problem with that is that the 6th Ecumenical Council sometimes accepted contradictory canons and principles, so acceptance of a Council (or collection of Canons of a Church Father) is by no means a precise and dogmatic acceptance of every single doctrine or belief within those sources. The sources accepted by the 6th Ecuemenical Council endorsed a number of different views towards the apocrypha/deuterocanonical, for example. Sometimes the people who originally wrote the canons didn't even follow their own canons (e.g., the principle established at the 1st Ecumenical Council that bishops were not to go from city to city).recieved by the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople;
Actually, to the best of my knowledge, this is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church.  I know Ware mentions it as does some other Orthodox authors.  If I have the time, I'll dig out the quote.  The Church does teach that baptism is neccesary, however, it is also moot on what happens to those that are not baptized.  I think it was the late Metropolitan Philaret? (I'm not sure on this either), even though the Orthodox Church believes herself to be the one Church, she does not know what happens to those outside it (thus baptism).But those that die without having been baptized, even the babes, is generally taught that they cannot inherit God's Kingdom, being severed from Christ.
That's the first time I've heard that... though it might go along with making the child pay for the sins of the fatherBut those that die without having been baptized, even the babes, is generally taught that they cannot inherit God's Kingdom, being severed from Christ.
No, I didn't know that. I do know that catechumens (who obviously aren't baptized yet) do get an Orthodox burial though. Don't understand that one.Do you know that, within the OC, unbaptized children are not even allowed a Christian burial
Well, no offense, but you seem to be the only one (who has responded yet anyway) that has heard of this. I certainly haven't heard that this happens, but am familiar with Church Fathers who say that such children do go to heaven (e.g., Gregory of Nyssa).It is clerar then, that the OC is not very hopeful as to their lot.
I wouldn't make any judgments about the "opinion of Orthodoxy" based on an Internet forum. As chris said recently: If you ask a question on OC.net, you're sure to get answers -- and maybe one of them will be correct.Mother Anastasia said:There seems to be some substantial difference of opinion in Orthodoxy over this issue.
It's also a fairly wide-spread popular belief (at least in Moldova...even parts of Greece) that if the priest fails to submerse, say, the hand of a child, then that child will grow up to be a thief, because his hand isn't regenerated.augustin717 said:Asteriktos,
Do you know that, within the OC, unbaptized children are not even allowed a Christian burial, in an Orthodox cemetery. Back in my little town, there were a section, in a remote corner of the cemetery reserved for those that committed suicide and unbaptized children. It is clerar then, that the OC is not very hopeful as to their lot.
Returning to the preschism Church, after 20 years of RC, I can share with you what I was taught,pensateomnia said:I wouldn't make any judgments about the "opinion of Orthodoxy" based on an Internet forum. As chris said recently: If you ask a question on OC.net, you're sure to get answers -- and maybe one of them will be correct.
Yet another reason why reason and our understanding of God requires us to, along with St. Gregory of Nyssa, adopt the Christian doctrine of apokatastasis.Asteriktos said:Well, no offense, but you seem to be the only one (who has responded yet anyway) that has heard of this. I certainly haven't heard that this happens, but am familiar with Church Fathers who say that such children do go to heaven (e.g., Gregory of Nyssa).
I've heard the RC doctrine as Mary was assumed into Heaven BEFORE she fell asleep (as in, never did in an earthly format - similar to Elijah or Enoch). The EO view is apparant if you look at an icon of the Dormition.Mother Anastasia said:Returning to the preschism Church, after 20 years of RC, I can share with you what I was taught,
more through osmosis than any formal classes. (which I did not take)
Mary fell asleep and was assumed into Heaven.
I have never heard that "because she was Immaculately Conceived etc. etc., was assumed directly into heaven." as you mentioned.