I
Has the Orthodox Church ever taught any contradictory dogmas/doctrines?
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
I doesn’t really make sense to speak of the “Roman Church”.
There is, of course, the Roman Communion – although I think it’s preferable to call it simply the Catholic Church.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Off-topic. This thread is about Catholicism and Orthodoxy, not really Protestantism.
The terms “orthodox” and “Orthodox” aren’t interchangeable.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Mike SoCal simply post the Protestant view, which usually is not on topic, and stops posting. He has done this on a few of my threads. He has even sent me PMs before saying I need to turn from the “false Catholic Faith” and turn to “Christ” and be saved. Just ignore it. lol
Back to topic.
Back to topic.
Hi popMike SoCal simply post the Protestant view, which usually is not on topic, and stops posting. He has done this on a few of my threads. He has even sent me PMs before saying I need to turn from the “false Catholic Faith” and turn to “Christ” and be saved. Just ignore it. lol
Back to topic.
Mike posts the Baptist view, which may be considered a protestant view.
An interesting thread, nonetheless, and I will go back to “lurking” on it.
Jon
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Thanks for the correction
lol. I really need to watch that. Back to lurking as well
N
Nicea325
Guest
2 Tim 3:16 was not written to teach Scripture is THE authority. Your interpretation like so many is bogus.
N
Nicea325
Guest
What about it? Do you believe it is a separate entity from the CC?
N
Nicea325
Guest
From my understanding and studying of orthodox Christianity: NOPE!
G
Genesis315
Guest
To answer the OPs question, yes. In addition to what they rejected by separating from the Church (the primacy), they also teach that one can commit adultery with two people with the blessing of the Church (ie they allow people to re-marry twice after entering into a valid sacramental marriage, even though the real spouse is still alive). The offical position on artifical contraception seems to very from autocephalous or particular Church to Church.
In addition, they have gone back and forth on other things since the schism.
For example, the modern EO reject our understanding of original sin (reducing it to merely concupiscence and death), when it was not an issue pre-schism and when they themselves taught the same understanding as us at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalmen in 1672 (along with definitively numbering the sacraments at 7, using the word “transubstantiation,” teaching the Catholic understanding of temporal punishment and satisfaction after death, mortal sins, the Catholic canon of Scripture, etc.). These pronouncements were used as a binding profession of faith for those who wished to be in communion with the Orthodox Church as late as 1721.
Similarly, they now call indulgences heretical when they issued them and even confirmed their validity at the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1727. Furthermore, the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1838 condemned their use for enrichment–but not the practice, which continued until as late as the 1950s in the Greek Church.
Note, no EO apologist or theologian I know even tries to argue these things taught at pan-Orthodox Councils are legitimate developments. They freely claim they were in error during those times, but that since the Church got rid of them later its ok. Of course, if that’s the case, who knows what they might later think they are in error about and get rid of–there’s no more certainty of faith.
Of course, also, at the reunion Councils of Lyons II and Florence they accepted papal primacy, the orthodoxy of our use of the Filioque, etc.and now reject these things as well.
They also are not unified as to whether re-baptism is sacriligious or necessary.
In addition, they have gone back and forth on other things since the schism.
For example, the modern EO reject our understanding of original sin (reducing it to merely concupiscence and death), when it was not an issue pre-schism and when they themselves taught the same understanding as us at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalmen in 1672 (along with definitively numbering the sacraments at 7, using the word “transubstantiation,” teaching the Catholic understanding of temporal punishment and satisfaction after death, mortal sins, the Catholic canon of Scripture, etc.). These pronouncements were used as a binding profession of faith for those who wished to be in communion with the Orthodox Church as late as 1721.
Similarly, they now call indulgences heretical when they issued them and even confirmed their validity at the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1727. Furthermore, the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1838 condemned their use for enrichment–but not the practice, which continued until as late as the 1950s in the Greek Church.
Note, no EO apologist or theologian I know even tries to argue these things taught at pan-Orthodox Councils are legitimate developments. They freely claim they were in error during those times, but that since the Church got rid of them later its ok. Of course, if that’s the case, who knows what they might later think they are in error about and get rid of–there’s no more certainty of faith.
Of course, also, at the reunion Councils of Lyons II and Florence they accepted papal primacy, the orthodoxy of our use of the Filioque, etc.and now reject these things as well.
They also are not unified as to whether re-baptism is sacriligious or necessary.
I
Indifferently
Guest
The Catholic Church is the Church named in the creeds, being one and the same with the Body of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is properly speaking a communion within that one Body. Owing to a largely post-scholastic innovation in ecclesiology the Roman Communion has at times equated itself with the totality of the Christian church, but this view simply doesn’t make any sense if it recognizes baptisms and other sacraments outside its confines, which it does.
D
dzheremi
Guest
No, it hasn’t. There are several doctrinal differences between it and the Roman Catholic communion (sorry, Peter J), as you would expect since we are not RCs, but no internally-contradictory doctrines.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I would be most interested in an explanation of Orthodox teachings on divorce and remarriage. In particular, justification for the practice of allowing them from Sacred Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition would be of interest to me.
antiochian.org/1123706833
antiochian.org/1123706833
D
dzheremi
Guest
Here is an interesting presentation by Bishop Athenagoras of Sinope, which provides an Eastern Orthodox perspective on marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Thank you!
R
Rawb
Guest
They’re not. Some Orthodox are mistakenly told they are, or spontaneously believe they are, but that’s because the Ecumenical Councils, in Orthodoxy, hold a somewhat similar authority to the pope in your church, so sometimes the analogy gets drawn too far. Infallibility is something your church came up with; nothing and nobody in Orthodoxy is infallible, except God.
J
jimmy
Guest
From what I understand of Orthodoxy, the closest you get to infallibility is a sense of providence that will ensure that the Church will always exist. There is no guarantee that any particular church will always remain orthodox. But there will always be orthodox Christians. Infallibility might be spoken of by some orthodox, but it is always applied retrospectively. It is looking back that the Church says Constantinople I was infallible or without error. The Church always acts with faith, and hope that God will always be present and preserve the Church.
S
suissemissed
Guest
Wikipedia gives mixed claims, saying the Russian Orthodox Church has the view described above (by Rawb and others), while the Greek Orthodox believe in infallibility on a higher level closer to what Catholics believe. OrthodoxWiki also seems to teach infallibility, and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware said nothing about how Orthodox differ from Catholics in this sense in his The Orthodox Church. The whole thing is quite confusing, as there doesn’t seem to be much agreement within Orthodoxy itself on the matter.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Ah no! The church already tackled the issue if a baptism is valid or not…a long time ago. Baptisms under the Trinitarian formula and water are all valid. The Roman CC is more commonly known as the Latin Rite.
N
Nicea325
Guest
The church magically fabricated infallibility? The RCC did not come up with infallibility;moreover, it was given to the church from God. The church is infallible because the church is an extension of Christ Incarnation because its the fullness of Christ as Ephesians states. If infallibility is a term coined up, then all ecumenical councils would be in question.
- Status