Heresy?

[montalban]

I think we are going off topic here people.

The only consistant "heresy" you have come up with is the position of the Bishop of Rome.

Would you call him schismatic then?

 

[Mother Anastasia]

I am concerned by some of the things I saw there. The first thing that strikes me is that the site presents an ecumenist belief that both the Eastern and Roman churches departed from traditional Christian faith.

I would sincerely like to know what caused you to come to this conclusion.

It may be perhaps the statement after the links (on His Perspective) which has been revised but is not posted as yet. But I am interested to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

[The Wolf]

Would you call him schismatic then?

No.
That is why I used "heresy" instead of heresy.

 

[Asteriktos]

Wolf

The only consistant "heresy" you have come up with is the position of the Bishop of Rome

One could argue that purgatory and other doctrines are heretical... personally it doesn't much matter to me. So I'll ask a different question. Are there a certain number of heretical beliefs necessary before things get really serious? Is one heresy ok, while 4 or more means a Church has fallen? If a female friend of yours said to you "Well sure he has cheated on me with that girl for years, but that's only one mistake. It's not like he beats me. He's only made one mistake and admittedly refuses to change. But why would I seperate from him over that?" would you agree with that logic? Is it not really adultery if it's just one other woman/heresy (whether personally or ecclesiastically)?

Also, as a general question, are all heresies of the same weight? For example, Theodore the Studite (a pre-schism saint ) called a certain divorce of the emperor, which was allowed by the religious of the time, "heresy"... but did he mean heresy in the same way that someone would call papal supremacy heresy? Maybe there are levels or degrees of heresy, in which case the Orthodox could probably argue for more than half a dozen heresies.

 

[The Wolf]

Wolf

One could argue that purgatory and other doctrines are heretical... personally it doesn't much matter to me. So I'll ask a different question. Are there a certain number of heretical beliefs necessary before things get really serious? Is one heresy ok, while 4 or more means a Church has fallen? If a female friend of yours said to you "Well sure he has cheated on me with that girl for years, but that's only one mistake. It's not like he beats me. He's only made one mistake and admittedly refuses to change. But why would I seperate from him over that?" would you agree with that logic? Is it not really adultery if it's just one other woman/heresy (whether personally or ecclesiastically)?

Also, as a general question, are all heresies of the same weight? For example, Theodore the Studite (a pre-schism saint ) called a certain divorce of the emperor, which was allowed by the religious of the time, "heresy"... but did he mean heresy in the same way that someone would call papal supremacy heresy? Maybe there are levels or degrees of heresy, in which case the Orthodox could probably argue for more than half a dozen heresies.

Two points.
1. I don't agree that it is a heresy as I have already said!!!
2. That a lovely forgiving Christian attitude you've got there. Are you married?

 

[Asteriktos]

I am married, I'm not Christian, and if my wife cheated on me and wasn't sorry for it, but even continued on cheating, then yes, I would have a hard time forgiving her. Leastwise it'd be very hard to live and have close contact with her while she openly slept with another man. What you are asking is that Orthodox Christians ignore that, from Orthodoxy's perspective, Catholicism is still sleeping around.

 

[The Wolf]

I am married, I'm not Christian, and if my wife cheated on me and wasn't sorry for it, but even continued on cheating, then yes, I would have a hard time forgiving her. Leastwise it'd be very hard to live and have close contact with her while she openly slept with another man. What you are asking is that Orthodox Christians ignore that, from Orthodoxy's perspective, Catholicism is still sleeping around.

From the point of view of the Catholics the Orthodox falsely accuse us of being in the wrong when they themselves are in the wrong!

 

[PeterTheAleut]

What on earth is going on here?
I always seem to get this from Orthodox people on the net. Why?

(Imagine me saying this in a rather jocular sort of manner. ) You come to an Orthodox forum and start a thread asking the Orthodox posters to share with you what they see as the heresies in your RC tradition. How else would you expect us to respond? You asked us to be honest, and you got honesty from us. I would say you got what you asked for.

 

[The Wolf]

(Imagine me saying this in a rather jocular sort of manner.  )  You come to an Orthodox forum and start a thread asking the Orthodox posters to share with you what they see as the heresies in your RC tradition.  How else would you expect us to respond?  You asked us to be honest, and you got honesty from us.  I would say you got what you asked for. ÂÂ

I asked for a list with an explanation and not content less post just pointing out the Orthodox or better and right so there.
I'm not interested in one-upmanship I'm interested in the issues.
OK?
Thanks.

 

[Elisha]

From the point of view of the Catholics the Orthodox falsely accuse us of being in the wrong when they themselves are in the wrong!

...except that Orthodoxy has not changed from what has been always and every.  I don't think you've even tried to make a case that Orthodoxy has changed.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

From the point of view of the Catholics the Orthodox falsely accuse us of being in the wrong when they themselves are in the wrong!

I'm familiar with this perspective, but I wouldn't say that too loudly around here. You wouldn't want to anger the natives. ;D Honestly, I would rather Catholics say this of the Orthodox than to just not care about truth and orthodoxy at all. Those who seek after Truth will eventually find it.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I asked for a list with an explanation and not content less post just pointing out the Orthodox or better and right so there.
I'm not interested in one-upmanship I'm interested in the issues.
OK?
Thanks.

Sorry, I didn't phrase my words very well. What I really intended to say is that in asking your question you opened yourself up to a lot of what you didn't want to receive, kinda like opening a can of worms. Part of this is just the nature of internet discussion forums. A single thread will branch off into many more tangents than even your average face-to-face discussion, in large part because so many more people are involved in the conversation. There's also much more opportunity for people to hijack the discussion for a personal agenda and much more opportunity for posters to be distracted by such agendas. You can state the way you would like people to post on this or any thread, but you expect way too much to insist that people follow your directions in a face-to-face discussion, much less on an internet forum discussion such as this.

I realize also that many people just don't think in the logical point-by-point way that you and I think. My pastor is a very good example of this with his "throw mud on the wall and see what sticks" approach to preparing and preaching homilies. I can't expect him to present his homilies in a way that I can understand better; I just have to try to cut through his style to understand what he's saying. There is certainly a lot of content in his sermons, once you know how to decipher his shotgun style. Similarly, you can find a lot of substance in the general theme of the posts on this thread once you know how to cut through our shotgun posting approach. Try also to separate the content of our posts from the apparent "one-upmanship" style that you will unfortunately receive from a lot of Orthodox zealots like myself.

 

[montalban]

No.
That is why I used "heresy" instead of heresy.

I'd use schismatic

 

[montalban]

...except that Orthodoxy has not changed from what has been always and every.  I don't think you've even tried to make a case that Orthodoxy has changed.

A very good point. Simply because both accuse each other of the same thing does not mean that they are both wrong... which seems to be what he's trying to imply

 

[The Wolf]

...except that Orthodoxy has not changed from what has been always and every.  I don't think you've even tried to make a case that Orthodoxy has changed.

I don't need to make any such case.
Right now I'm just trying to understand the Orthodox position.

 

[The Wolf]

I'd use schismatic

I've noticed.

 

[montalban]

I've noticed.

It's a great descriptor of Catholic teaching in general

 

[The Wolf]

It's a great descriptor of Catholic teaching in general

Thanks for the insight :

 

[Elisha]

I don't need to make any such case.
Right now I'm just trying to understand the Orthodox position.

...and it has been told back on the first two pages of this thread, explained why the Orthodox disagree and their current position to toward the RC. I'm sorry if YOU disagree, but we don't all believe the exact same thing or have the exact same tastes.

 

[The Wolf]

...and it has been told back on the first two pages of this thread, explained why the Orthodox disagree and their current position to toward the RC.  I'm sorry if YOU disagree, but we don't all believe the exact same thing or have the exact same tastes.

And?

 

[francis-christopher]

In nomine Ieus I offer you all Peace,

I'm not personally interested in debate concerning Catholic and Orthodox grasping for the sole title of Christ's Church but I have found the number of Orthodox Christians on this forum who appear to not recognize the eternity of 'both' heaven and hell as a possible sign of movement within the 'faithful' from Orthodox Teaching on the Subject.

Whither this is an example of 'overall' movement from Orthodoxy by Orthodox Christians is clearly a topic for debate but I find the overwhelming support for 'Universalism' here very concerning.

Peace.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

In nomine Ieus I offer you all Peace,

I'm not personally interested in debate concerning Catholic and Orthodox grasping for the sole title of Christ's Church but I have found the number of Orthodox Christians on this forum who appear to not recognize the eternity of 'both' heaven and hell as a possible sign of movement within the 'faithful' from Orthodox Teaching on the Subject.

Whither this is an example of 'overall' movement from Orthodoxy by Orthodox Christian is clearly a topic for debate but I find the overwhelming support for 'Universalism' here very concerning.

Peace.

Yes, many of us Orthodox posters are equally bothered by this trend away from Christ's witness to the eternal suffering of gehenna, which I hope you can also see. We see Tradition in one way as Scripture properly interpreted, but the Holy Spirit cannot lead us to reinterpret the Scriptures in such a way as to deny the doctrines that Christ Himself taught publicly.

 

[Asteriktos]

Wolf

Right now I'm just trying to understand the Orthodox position.

The Orthodox position is the same as the position previously held by the Catholic Church, until the latter caught the ecumenism bug (a very pesky, and sometimes fatal, critter!). If you go back and read Roman Catholic sources from the early 20th century and before, you'll see heresy and schism thrown around quite a bit. The Catholics may have changed, but to echo the words of St. Basil in his Canonical Epistle, just because one side is nice to you, that doesn't mean that you have to return the favor. Basically, you seem to be mad at Orthodoxy for being consistent with it's stance from previous centuries, and not caving to buried-head-in-sand-ism.

francis,

I find the overwhelming support for 'Universalism' here very concerning.

Come on now, there are 1,670 members on this forum, and I bet you couldn't identify by name 5 members (that'd be .2%) who are universalists. There are 2 or 3 who are very vocal members, who happen to be good at debate, and are willing to invest the time it takes to engage in a lengthy theological discussion. That's it. If there case seems "overwhelming," then I suggest three possible explanations. First, they might just be better at articulating and defending their position in a detailed and systematic manner. Second, they might be correct, in which case anyone who does believe in an eternal hell might have some awkward feelings when reading their beliefs. Or third, Christian authorities (Scripture, Fathers, etc.) might contradict each other, and thus if one expects an easy victory for a monolithic "orthodox" position, and does not see such a victory in sight, then that might cause considerable anxiety. Personally, I think it's a bit of one and a bit of three. 8)

 

[Mother Anastasia]

+
+
+
Consider Brothers, Who it is here, that we are hurting.

 

[Mother Anastasia]

but will be based on things like doctrinal belief, orthodox practice, etc.

But no one here, has asked me about doctrinal belief, or orthodox practice?

Rather I am being asked to provide pedigrees and institutional alliances?

Will God judge my life on these things?

 

[Elisha]

Asteriktos,
With how well you written all your replies (to everyone) recently, I'm surprised you haven't convinced yourself to return to the Church.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

In light of the subject of this thread, I offer for our discussion this snippet from the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

From St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies: Book III

CHAP. IV.--THE TRUTH IS TO BE FOUND NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE SOLE DEPOSITORY OF APOSTOLICAL DOCTRINE. HERESIES ARE OF RECENT FORMATION, AND CANNOT TRACE THEIR ORIGIN UP TO THE APOSTLES.

1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

This excerpt extracted from this url: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer3.txt


(modifications added below to offer my own comments on the text)

From the above excerpt from St. Irenaeus's writings, I offer the following:

• There is but one Church of Christ.
• This Church has by necessity made itself manifest as an "institution."
• Christ and His Holy Apostles have bequeathed upon the Church Truth in all its fullness. As such, those who will can draw from the Church the water of life.
• We must adhere to the teachings of the Church, the Tradition of Truth.
• Those who teach doctrines contrary to the doctrines of the great Church of Christ must be avoided as heretics. I know that this statement is very unpopular in today's ecumenical climate, for many of today's ecumenists have all but thrown out the word heresy for the sake of [false] unity. However, I hope you can see that St. Irenaeus considered the preservation of true doctrine and the articulation of truth against heresy to be one of the most important works of the Church. Those who are members of the Church cannot be in [Sacramental] union with those who would mark themselves as heretics by perverting the truth.

 

[montalban]

Thanks for the insight

You're more than welcome. If you want to move beyond trading one-liners, you can always visit any of the facts I've posted and take up discussing them

 

[Mother Anastasia]

• There is but one Church of Christ.

1. I agree with this statement whole heartedly. But it is apparent from this forum that many are in dissension about exactly which Church is the one true Church. If we were autocephalous, under the covering of the Roman Catholic pontiff, as was suggested earlier, this would be acceptable(to some)....but then we would be in conflict with those Orthodox that insist that Rome broke away from them and is teaching false doctrine, therefore, they are heretics and anyone under their covering are heretics as well.

If I were to assemble ministers from the Baptist, Lutheran, Pentacostal, Church of Christ, etc. They would all argue that their doctrine was the only truth, and the others were heretics.

By way of the same example, if all the divergent Orthodox groups, Greek and Russian, were assembled under one roof, along with the Catholics, again there would be contention and insistence that theirs was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Each would find fault with the other due to some divergence of opinion, practice, dogmatic statement...etc. etc.

Just one little quote taking about three minutes to find on the internet...bear in mind I am ignorant of all the groups and don't even know where to go to find an example,all I had to do was type in schism, and volumes presented themselves with the same claims.


http://netministries.org/see/churches/ch05275
...Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church of North and South America and is under the spiritual guidance of Archbishop +GREGORY. Our Primate is His Beatitude, Metropolitan +STEPHAN of Cleveland. We are in communion with Churches throughout the United States and Canada. We, however, are not in communion with all jurisdictions. Our apostolic succession comes from several lines dating back to Jesus Christ. Our lines include Ukrainian, Greek, Russian and others. For instance, St. Tikhon, the last true Patriarch of Russia who was murdered by the communists, is in our lines. We are not in communion with some Orthodox Churches because of their refusal to follow the sacred canons of the seven ecumenical councils and also for their misunderstanding of how the canons should be applied and what they mean.


http://www.romanorthodox.com/communion.html
The words schism and schismatic have found perhaps their heaviest usage in the history of Christianity, to denote splits within a church or religious body. In this context, schismatic as a noun denotes a person who creates or incites schism in a church or is a member of a splinter church, and schismatic as an adjective refers to ideas and things that are thought to lead towards or promote schism, often describing a church that has departed from whichever communion the user of the word considers to be the true Christian church. These words have been used to denote both the phenomenon of Christian group splintering in general, and certain significant historical splits in particular.

Thus, within Christianity the word schism may refer to:

* The offense of inciting divisions among Christians.

His Beatitude, +DAVID
Metropolitan Archbishop, Archdiocese of the Americas
Primate II
ROMAN ORTHODOX CHURCH


So in essence, I am coming under fire from you for trying to promote unity, while you are busy trying to divide yourselves from others. According to the definition presented by St. Ireneaus, who is the schismatic here?

And how can we proceed to point two?

We are in desperate need of God's mercy! Must He send a comet to knock this planet off its axis and plunge it into darkness where a third of humanity is killed and only a few handfuls of Sacramental Christians let alone priests and Bishops are left, and we are all so thirsty and desperate for true Christian fellowship, that we will, with profound gratitude and reverence receive last rights from any Orthodox or Catholic with Apostolic Succession? Or even better, if we are lying their burnt from head to toe, shivering in our pain, and a Pentacostal comes and lays hands on us, tearfully begging God to have mercy and take us quickly or heal us. Shall we have the arrogance to push his hand away and tell him we can't pray with him?

I think we have a great deal to learn, and I pray that God does not have to resort to the hard way reserved for hardened hearts. But He is a loving and persistent Father, and I believe He will use every measure to bring us to humble repentance for the endless ways we have arrogantly presumed to elevate ourselves above others and exclude them from the fellowship of the believers.

By the definition of St. Ireneaus, I do not see any institution who has not in some way, succumbed to schism.

Please post any other topics as these into the Heresy-Jurisidction Thread. This thread is to remain about the Roman Catholic Church and heresies it may hold. - dantxny, moderator
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8972.0

 

[prodromos]

By way of the same example, if all the divergent Orthodox groups, Greek and Russian, were assembled under one roof, along with the Catholics, again there would be contention and insistence that theirs was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Each would find fault with the other due to some divergence of opinion, practice, dogmatic statement...etc. etc.

If by "divergent Orthodox groups" you mean those who claim to be Orthodox (but aren't necessarily) then what you say is true. But if you mean the Orthodox church in Greece, the Orthodox church in Russia, the Orthodox church in Japan, the Orthodox church in Georgia, the Orthodox church in America, the Orthodox church in Serbia, the Orthodox church in Bulgaria, etc. then you have mischaracterised them as "divergent" and your statement is false.

John

 

[Starlight]

Mother Anastasia

http://netministries.org/see/churches/ch05275
...Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church of North and South America and is under the spiritual guidance of Archbishop +GREGORY. Our Primate is His Beatitude, Metropolitan +STEPHAN of Cleveland. We are in communion with Churches throughout the United States and Canada. We, however, are not in communion with all jurisdictions. Our apostolic succession comes from several lines dating back to Jesus Christ. Our lines include Ukrainian, Greek, Russian and others. For instance, St. Tikhon, the last true Patriarch of Russia who was murdered by the communists, is in our lines. We are not in communion with some Orthodox Churches because of their refusal to follow the sacred canons of the seven ecumenical councils and also for their misunderstanding of how the canons should be applied and what they mean.

As a Ukrainian I have to officially say that the jurisdiction mentioned above is just a vagante group and cannot be considered a Canonical Orthodox jurisdisdiction. So this example does not apply here. The only Canonical Orthodox Ukrainian body in USA is UOC-USA.
http://www.uocofusa.org
Of course, there are Orthodox Ukrainians in other Canonical Orthodox Jurisdictions as well as non-Ukrainians are more then welcome to join UOC-USA and thanks God, they do so, including many current UOC-USA clergy.

Prodromos,
Totally agree with you.

 

[Mother Anastasia]

Quote from Peter the Aluet
The first thing that strikes me is that the site presents an ecumenist belief that both the Eastern and Roman churches departed from traditional Christian faith. This essentially implies that there was a third way that was at one time invisible.
Peter the Aluet

Christ began His Church on earth as One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church; man through greed, lust, and power divided this seamless garment and began arguing over who was right. So you are talking about the two or more branches of the church, and I am talking about what was in the beginning, One Church.

Now, because of these divisions, anointings legitimately from God are scorned. Take for instance the Divine Mercy apostolate of St. Faustina Kowalska. Do we need exceptional mercy on earth at this time? Just listening to this forum, I would say we surely do.

Yet some Orthodox will argue that she was delusional, and graces cannot be
released by our suffering and prayers on behalf of another. Yet the miracles and death bed conversions testify to the veracity of this devotion. The whole undivided church needs this devotion. But because of the arrogance of the shepherds, the sheep are denied this grace (which is most efficacious for the dying unrepentant sinner).

Do you think God is pleased with this kind of opposition that shuts up the gates of mercy, not allowing the sheep to enter in, and in the next breath claim to be His shepherds in His one and only true church?

Do you know what is the most common thing I hear as to why good and devout people will no longer go to church? The Romans won't administer the sacraments if you aren't paid up on your tithes...a dying elderly woman cannot be buried with her husband (imagine this, a penniless widow) in the same cemetery because she's not paid up!! People who wanted to serve and felt a profound calling on their lives are turned away. Those who preach the truth are "retired"...

An Orthodox woman walked by our chapel yesterday as we were passing out food. She stopped to visit with Father Bishop and told him the woefull story of how, in the Aleutian Islands she was part of an Orthodox Church, but the political infighting and degrading mud slinging were so unchristian, that she couldn't take it anymore and she left. Now she doesn't want to get involved with any group because she is afraid to hear anymore. She just wants her own peaceful relationship with God.

Can you imagine this? One who has been driven away by our bad example? And for this we will receive a reward in Heaven? In our struggles to be so "correct" we have alienated a soul from the sacraments. And this is only one soul out of millions.

I tell you Brothers, Christians are jaded, turned off and fed up with the institutional churches. If we don't do something about our attitudes, I fear for the state of our souls, and at this rate I certainly don't expect to hear, "Well done my good and faithful servant, enter into your Master's joy."

 

[Mother Anastasia]

Mother AnastasiaAs a Ukrainian I have to officially say

By making this pronouncement on the vagante group, are you saying that this woman would have been condemned anyway, since she was not a part of the True Church?

My perspective is to question, what would we officially say when we face our Creator and with tears running down His cheeks He asks us why we scandalized a lamb in this (unclean) vagante group, because when she saw our pronouncements she, frightened and confused, stopped going to any church, never fulfilled her calling, and died outside the Sacraments?

 

[Mother Anastasia]

Prodromos,
Totally agree with you.

If we agree, we have to be delicately carefull that in trying to pull out what we see as tares, we do not uproot the wheat and kill it too. Please forgive me brother for being uncharitable in my response.

 

[Starlight]

And what will you officially say when you face your Creator and with tears running down His cheeks He asks you why you scandalized a lamb in this (unclean) vagante group, because when she saw your pronouncement she, frightened and confused, stopped going to any church, never fulfilled her calling, and died outside the Sacraments?

There will be an accounting Brother, and your lineage and paperwork will not pay the debt.

Mother Anastasia,
As PeterTheAleut said here, based on St. Irinaeus of Lyons:

There is but one Church of Christ.

Thank you for a great analysis, Peter. Also, I really appreciate and admire efforts of all Orthodox posters here.

 

[Starlight]

Actually, let us follow Dantxny's decision and use Heresy-Jurisdiction thread.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8972.0
Dantxny, I support your decision and apologize for the confusion.

 

[Mother Anastasia]

• • Those who teach doctrines contrary to the doctrines of the great Church of Christ must be avoided as heretics. I know that this statement is very unpopular in today's ecumenical climate, for many of today's ecumenists have all but thrown out the word heresy for the sake of [false] unity. However, I hope you can see that St. Irenaeus considered the preservation of true doctrine and the articulation of truth against heresy to be one of the most important works of the Church. Those who are members of the Church cannot be in [Sacramental] union with those who would mark themselves as heretics by perverting the truth.

  If you percieve our position to be heretical, would you please make a list to clarify what doctrines we support that go against true doctrine?
  
  (the only one I am aware of is our jurisdictional position)
  
  Thank you.
  
  (p.s.) I didn't know how to post this into the other category since I am quoting you from here.

 

[greekischristian]

Issues like this are why the Church has a long established standard for who is Orthodox and who is not...the Orthodox are those, and only those, who are in Communion with the Great Church of Christ, full stop, end of issue.

 

[Fr. George]

Hey folks: there is another thread to debate the "orthodoxy" of MA's jurisdiction.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8972.0

I thought this one had a different purpose.

 

[francis-christopher]

francis,

Come on now, there are 1,670 members on this forum, and I bet you couldn't identify by name 5 members (that'd be .2%) who are universalists. There are 2 or 3 who are very vocal members, who happen to be good at debate, and are willing to invest the time it takes to engage in a lengthy theological discussion. That's it.  If there case seems "overwhelming," then I suggest three possible explanations. First, they might just be better at articulating and defending their position in a detailed and systematic manner. Second, they might be correct, in which case anyone who does believe in an eternal hell might have some awkward feelings when reading their beliefs. Or third, Christian authorities (Scripture, Fathers, etc.) might contradict each other, and thus if one expects an easy victory for a monolithic "orthodox" position, and does not see such a victory in sight, then that might cause considerable anxiety. Personally, I think it's a bit of one and a bit of three.  8)

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued Peace Asteriktos,

There are historically taught 'nine ways of participating in anothers sins', the 8th being through silence. Frankly I have enough sin of my own to stand idly by and be silent while others offer up error for the consumption of the faithful.

Two of the Chief Spiritual Works of Mercy are 'To instruct the ignorant' and 'To counsel the doubtful'. In either case I am moved to offer up a Biblical, Catholic and Orthodox defense to the unbiblical, unCatholic and unOrthodox articulation of universal salvation.

This is a growing challenge to the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and I greatly fear that most Christians are truly very naive to the fact that modernist ideals have captivated their faith. I find it chilling to say that least.

Of course I'm an old school type so I don't take these trends lightly.

Peace and God Bless.