Generally dogma refers to those things which are required beliefs. That one can’t consider themselves to be in good standing with the church if they don’t believe these things. Dogma’s we agree on would be the divinity of Christ, or the Triune nature of God.I’m seeing the word dogma thrown out alot by our Orthodox friends. Do you guys mean, specifically, “false teachings of the Catholic Church and/or the Papacy”?
Because we use the term to apply to things that the Orthodox agree upon from the early ecumenical councils, as well as those teachings they believe to be unnecessary or fictional products of the Catholic hierarchy. And I’m not that bright so it has me confused.
Not just in good standing with the Church, but that one who denies a dogma jeopardizes his salvation.Generally dogma refers to those things which are required beliefs. That one can’t consider themselves to be in good standing with the church if they don’t believe these things. Dogma’s we agree on would be the divinity of Christ, or the Triune nature of God.
Dogma is associated with teachings that have anathemas attached to them. To not believe them seperates you from the Church. The Trinity and Christological doctrines are examples of dogmas. The Son and Spirit are homoousios or the same nature as the Father. That is a dogma, and to not accept it is to seperate yourself from the Church. There are also things that may be true, but they aren’t dogma because the failure to believe them doesn’t seperate you from the Church. It may be the case that Mary was assumed into heaven, but if someone fails to accept it they aren’t automatically condemned for it (atleast from an eastern perspective).I’m seeing the word dogma thrown out alot by our Orthodox friends. Do you guys mean, specifically, “false teachings of the Catholic Church and/or the Papacy”?
Because we use the term to apply to things that the Orthodox agree upon from the early ecumenical councils, as well as those teachings they believe to be unnecessary or fictional products of the Catholic hierarchy. And I’m not that bright so it has me confused.
Its not that think that the Orthodox think that the councils did not solve doctrinal questions, its that I think the majority do not believe there have been any valid ecumenical councils for over a thousand years. Which seems on the face of it very questionable. It would seem to imply that either a main reason for having councils, serious disputes, no longer exists (very doubtful indeed). Or that the Church no longer has the ability to resolve those disputes (has no authority, also not a good sign). Or that maybe men have so warped the workings of Christ’s church that it cannot do one of its fundamental and Traditional functions. At which point it seems valid to ask, what is it doing right at all if it can’t teach Tradition to the world with one voice?But we do have an agreed upon Authority - Tradition, that which has come before. There can be no greater authority. Aside from that we have the consensus of the hierarchic, both present and past, to guide us in our interpretation of that Tradition.
That said, the Councils did solve doctrinal issues. I’m not sure where you get the idea that we don’t think they did.
Ok, that makes sense. So stating that the reason the dormition/assumption is universally taught and celebrated everywhere you find Tradition, is because it is part of Tradition, was a mistake from the eastern perspective. That no one knows for sure if that part of Christian history ever happened.Dogma is associated with teachings that have anathemas attached to them. To not believe them seperates you from the Church. The Trinity and Christological doctrines are examples of dogmas. The Son and Spirit are homoousios or the same nature as the Father. That is a dogma, and to not accept it is to seperate yourself from the Church. There are also things that may be true, but they aren’t dogma because the failure to believe them doesn’t seperate you from the Church. It may be the case that Mary was assumed into heaven, but if someone fails to accept it they aren’t automatically condemned for it (atleast from an eastern perspective).
No. Just because something is part of tradition doesn’t make it dogma. That is the point. It isn’t a question of whether it is true, or even how certain we are of its truth. It is a question of the necessity of it.Ok, that makes sense. So stating that the reason the dormition/assumption is universally taught and celebrated everywhere you find Tradition, is because it is part of Tradition, was a mistake from the eastern perspective. That no one knows for sure if that part of Christian history ever happened.
I’m posing a question to discover something I don’t know about Holy Orthodoxy; not drawing a conclusion not supported by its premiss.This question seems a bit of a non-sequitor (sic.).
You’ll get different answers for why we haven’t had an ecumenical council in quite some time, but ultimately there hasn’t been a need for one. We’ve had no concerns of such a pressing nature that we had to have one. Local councils and synods have done the job.Its not that think that the Orthodox think that the councils did not solve doctrinal questions, its that I think the majority do not believe there have been any valid ecumenical councils for over a thousand years. Which seems on the face of it very questionable. It would seem to imply that either a main reason for having councils, serious disputes, no longer exists (very doubtful indeed). Or that the Church no longer has the ability to resolve those disputes (has no authority, also not a good sign). Or that maybe men have so warped the workings of Christ’s church that it cannot do one of its fundamental and Traditional functions. At which point it seems valid to ask, what is it doing right at all if it can’t teach Tradition to the world with one voice?
With regards to the statements on authority, would it be fair to say then that the consensus of the hierarchs operates as a group of popes, as opposed to the singular pope in Rome? If I were Orthodox, could I disagree with something they fundamentally taught and still be in good standing?
I realize this question was addressed to Orthodox, but I must say that I can’t imagine Orthodox (or just about anyone, unless they had a very very weak understanding of the papacy) comparing their leadership to a group of popes.With regards to the statements on authority, would it be fair to say then that the consensus of the hierarchs operates as a group of popes, as opposed to the singular pope in Rome?
I can, to a certain extent, understanding where you’re coming from. In the Catholic Church we have a Supreme Authority. It can be difficult to grasp something different from our own experience. There simply is no central authority in the Eastern Orthodox churches. They have no office analogous to the Roman Catholic Pope. Furthermore, they see no need for one. I don’t think many orthodox will thank you for comparing their bishops to the Pope. If I may, if you’d like to learn more about the Eastern Orthodox churches, I’d recommend you read a book on their churches, written by an orthodox. The one I read was written by an orthodox bishop.With regards to the statements on authority, would it be fair to say then that the consensus of the hierarchs operates as a group of popes, as opposed to the singular pope in Rome? If I were Orthodox, could I disagree with something they fundamentally taught and still be in good standing?