Are there any teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church that would be considered heresy in the Roman Catholic Church?

[dochawk]

I’m not sure I entirely follow you here. What is it that is “kind of on-again, off-again”?

It was proposed, backed off from, abandoned, and now it’s being pushed again.

If I’m understanding the Orthodox position on divorce and remarriage correctly (and please correct me if I’m not seeing something here), when all else has failed, the Orthodox recognize the civil divorce, and then the parties are free to marry again.

You’re wrong

The Orthodox, as do the Catholics, hold that marriage is for life. They recognized that sometimes, though they should not, marriages die.

There is NO general permission.

If the priest and bishop find that the second marriage would be helpful to the salvation of the divorced or widowed person, permission to marry again is reluctantly granted.

Also, the second marriage issue not seen as sacramental, although there is hope that it will grow into that. Generally, penitential substitutions are made in the normal ceremony, although some have modernly dropped this.

And do they understand “economy” as dispensation from the canons of the church only, or does it extend to divine law?

Not to divine law; only Rome does that

Do they use “economy” as a way to allow a couple in dire circumstances to practice contraception (e.g., tried to make NFP work and it just doesn’t, grave threat to the health of the wife if she gets pregnant again, etc.)?

It is used at times for the temporary permission to use artificial methods – which when you get down to it, is the same verse with a different tune to NFP . . .

@Isaac14 below explains it far better than I did . . .

He stated Filioque has that as consequence. He does not believe in it, of course.

OK, that I can understand (while simultaneously disagreeing wit the position).

Melkites are sometimes prone to downplaying Schism-

I see it as they’re not “all in” on it. They don’t see it as licit in the first place. (and they’re right!)

He believes Rome is first among equals currently

It’s more that he states a duty to be in communion with Rome.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Orthodox, as do the Catholics, hold that marriage is for life. They recognized that sometimes, though they should not, marriages die.

So can it be said that, though no marriage can be dissolved, sometimes the sacrament simply dies, evaporates, disintegrates, whatever metaphor you choose? That is very interesting. I’ve speculated about this myself.

Also, the second marriage issue not seen as sacramental, although there is hope that it will grow into that.

Another interesting concept (and no, I am not being sarcastic — I don’t do sarcasm, I wasn’t raised that way). A non-sacramental marriage becoming a sacrament in time? Again, something to ponder.

Not to divine law; only Rome does that

Cute emojis (and I say this from one emoji lover to another)

It is used at times for the temporary permission to use artificial methods – which when you get down to it, is the same verse with a different tune to NFP . . .

I respectfully disagree. One is an immoral means to a just end, the other is a moral means to that same end.

 

[dochawk]

I don’t think it’s that simple. Just three verses later Jesus provides an exception for sexual immorality by one spouse.

Here’s also the “Pauline Privilege” . . .

On this forum, I’ve been told that I am condemned to hell for being an orthodox schismatic.

I remember that, and I’m still wincing . . . over the utter lack of charity, and the lack of logic, the ignorance of RCC teaching, and the actual defiance of the RCC in making the statement . . . [byzcath would have at least suspended for that, if not banned . . .]

evaporates, disintegrates, whatever metaphor you choose?

Yes. The metaphor is up for grabs, but the essence is there: something died that should not have . . .

A non-sacramental marriage becoming a sacrament in time?

Quite analogous to RCC on natural marriages . . .

I respectfully disagree. One is an immoral means to a just end, the other is a moral means to that same end.

That’s highly debatable–if you don’t start from RCC position, there is a quite reasonable argument that avoiding conception with NFP, yet having relations outside of the fertile period, is just as immoral by the same grounds. (there is a further distinction to be made about methods such as condoms with interfere with the act itself)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I respectfully disagree. One is an immoral means to a just end, the other is a moral means to that same end.

Of course NFP can be used for immoral purposes. No argument there. In Catholic moral theology, there has to be a serious or grave reason to seek to avoid pregnancy; you cannot use NFP “just because”, nor can you, under ordinary circumstances, use it to avoid pregnancy throughout the entire marriage.

I suppose my one remaining question would be “does Orthodoxy regard certain acts as intrinsically evil?”, i.e., they can never be good or even neutral. Catholic theology does regard deliberately seeking to frustrate the generative function by artificial means as being intrinsically evil; does Orthodoxy?