Changes in the Eastern Orthodox Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter xixxvmcm85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Milliardo said:
They were changes made not in accord with Holy Tradition, and worse, they were not deliberated by the Church as a whole. How can one Patriarchate then say this should apply to the whole Church when not all of its bishops are in attendance, as it should be? That it should then be that Apostolic Tradition should be kept is the call of Orthodoxy. If one wants the Church as it was, and should be, then it should be that one must adhere to this Tradition very closely, and in my study and research I have found this to be true for Orthodoxy than the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Has the Orthodox Church held synods without members of the Roman Church in which there was promulgation on faith and morals?
 
Milliardo said:
Some yes, some no. There is no such thing as 100%, or else one will have to say nothing good came out of it. But certainly not all of the changes were for the better, either.
Click to expand...
If some, not even a majority, were good, can it be said that the Holy SPirit guided us to them?
 
MementoMori3283 said:
Has the Orthodox Church held synods without members of the Roman Church in which there was promulgation on faith and morals?
Click to expand...
What has this to do with what I stated?
If some, not even a majority, were good, can it be said that the Holy SPirit guided us to them?
Click to expand...
It’s like saying the Holy Spirit only guides one Church. The Holy Spirit calls on the Catholic Church as well, but there must also be a need to discern its call and lead it to the right path.
 
Milliardo said:
What has this to do with what I stated?
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by MementoMori3283
Has the Orthodox Church held synods without members of the Roman Church in which there was promulgation on faith and morals?
40.png
Milliardo:
…they were not deliberated by the Church as a whole. How can one Patriarchate then say this should apply to the whole Church when not all of its bishops are in attendance, as it should be? That it should then be that Apostolic Tradition should be kept is the call of Orthodoxy. If one wants the Church as it was, and should be, then it should be that one must adhere to this Tradition very closely,
Click to expand...
 
MementoMori3283 said:
Originally Posted by MementoMori3283
Has the Orthodox Church held synods without members of the Roman Church in which there was promulgation on faith and morals?
Click to expand...
Note that the synods only deal with what is applicable to Orthodoxy; it does not proclaim such synods as “ecumenical” as the Catholic Church is wont to proclaim its synods after 1054. So such synods only deal with what is happening inside the Orthodox Church.
 
Milliardo said:
It’s like saying the Holy Spirit only guides one Church. The Holy Spirit calls on the Catholic Church as well, but there must also be a need to discern its call and lead it to the right path.
Click to expand...
So, some of the changes are good and we were lead ot those by the Holy Spirit. Why, then, is change bad?

I know that this may not be your position, but some EO claim that 100% of the changes made by Rome are bad and should eb scrapped. Further, some claim that it is not a matter of schism but that we are heretics.
 
ralphinal said:
So, some of the changes are good and we were lead ot those by the Holy Spirit. Why, then, is change bad?
Click to expand...
Change would be bad if it does not conform to Holy Tradition. If such changes result to innovations unheard of in the early Church, then it might be bad.
Further, some claim that it is not a matter of schism but that we are heretics.
Click to expand...
Yes, as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned, Rome is in heresy.
 
Milliardo said:
Change would be bad if it does not conform to Holy Tradition. If such changes result to innovations unheard of in the early Church, then it might be bad.
Click to expand...
Can you give me an example, other than the primacy of Rome or the filioque that goes against Holy Tradition?
Yes, as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned, Rome is in heresy.
Click to expand...
Wow.
 
ralphinal said:
I know this will come across the wrong way, but something in the Eastern Orthodox church reminds me of the parable of the servents with the talents. The one that kept his one talent safe and gave it back just like he found it…

I am not saying that they will be punished for it at all, it just rings a bell to me.
Click to expand...
Innovations do not equate to increases in talents.
 
Milliardo said:
Those are the two I can think of ATM, sorry. 🤷
Click to expand...
Those are the biggest. I have seen everytihng from the calender to the separation of Baptism and Confirmation. There is a list floating around somewhere
 
ralphinal said:
What is the difference? Is not an innovation a change?
Click to expand...
I think that’s exactly what he means. 👍
Those are the biggest. I have seen everytihng from the calender to the separation of Baptism and Confirmation. There is a list floating around somewhere
Click to expand...
Separating baptism and chrismation–not a big deal for me since one can be chrismated apart from baptism (example, Catholics entering Orthodoxy) as long as baptism’s done in the Trinitarian formula.
 
ralphinal said:
Can you give me an example, other than the primacy of Rome or the filioque that goes against Holy Tradition?
Click to expand...
Here are a few:

Papal infallibility/supremacy
Immaculate conception/original sin
purgatory
Filioque
Communion under one species

And here is one by my personal opinion because I have never cared for it…the Novus Ordo Mass. :bigyikes:
 
ralphinal said:
What is the difference? Is not an innovation a change?
Click to expand...
Greetings my brother in Christ.

A change could entail an area of discipline that may not affect the true faith. An innovation is an invented doctrine/dogma that was never known by the undivided Church.

I am familiar with the apologetics surrounding the faith in “seed form” and the term “development of doctrine”. But I think they are catch phrases to justify innovations that were never known to Apostolic Christianity.
 
Mickey said:
Here are a few:

Papal infallibility/supremacy
Immaculate conception/original sin
purgatory
Filioque
Communion under one species

And here is one by my personal opinion because I have never cared for it…the Novus Ordo Mass. :bigyikes:
Click to expand...
Not even going to touch the NO mass…

If we ignore the Papal issues and the filioque, can we touch upon the others for a second?

I think your issue with the I.C. is that it goes against free will correct? It is not an issue of the lack of sin in the Blessed Mother’s life.

Purgatory is a matter of having a definition, right? The concept of Purgatory comes from the Jewish faith and it has been there since day one.

What is wrong with communion under one species? Do you know why the church started it?
 
Mickey said:
Greetings my brother in Christ.

A change could entail an area of discipline that may not affect the true faith. An innovation is an invented doctrine/dogma that was never known by the undivided Church.

I am familiar with the apologetics surrounding the faith in “seed form” and the term “development of doctrine”. But I think they are catch phrases to justify innovations that were never known to Apostolic Christianity.
Click to expand...
Ok. Under these definitions I can accept the difference.
 
Strictly in respectful humor:

"How many Eastern Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb?

A; “What is this thing you call “change”?”
 
johnnykins said:
obviously - I do not deny differences of degree. This takes us back to the councils - true you haven’t had one in 1200 years or so. That has other implications.

(or, alternatively, wrap their mind around that the depths of revealed Truth are still revealed by a living Church through the Holy Spirit today - and not limited to ancestors of 1200 years and more ago)

The misunderstanding by many Orthodox of the development of doctrine constantly amazes me. What has happened in Catholicism since the 7th council - and not happened in Orthodoxy since then - is exactly the same as what took place through the 7th council. The living tradition of the early Church lives in unbroken vitality in Catholicism and has somehow been lost to Orthodoxy in a petrification of doctrine.

I fear the issue is that Orthodoxy is unchanging now though it was not so in the early church with all the negative implications related thereto. A Church alive for 800 years suddenly finding the inability to do those things that it did before is an issue.
Click to expand...
Didn’t we just have a thread about this?

Orthodoxy and its paralysis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top