Has the Orthodox Church ever taught any contradictory dogmas/doctrines?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JD27076
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JD27076

Guest
The Catholic Church hasn’t because we have the charism of infallibility and cannot err from the faith.

However, if I am correct, the Orthodox do not share in the same charism of infallibility as we do.

From this, has the Orthodox Church ever taught anything contradictory?

Thank you.
 
Well, the fact that they reject the pope is a biggie. However, I have friends who are Orthodox and in the past when they’ve tried to explain the differences in their beliefs from Catholic beliefs, I’ve generally found that they either misunderstand the Catholic teaching in question or they are making a distinction without a difference.
 
The Catholic Church hasn’t because we have the charism of infallibility and cannot err from the faith.

However, if I am correct, the Orthodox do not share in the same charism of infallibility as we do.

From this, has the Orthodox Church ever taught anything contradictory?

Thank you.
***We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from similar delinquencies, we ordain that the book of the “Dialogues of Galileo Galilei” be prohibited by public edict.

We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week at the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance.

And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain, and reserve in this and in any other better way and form which we can and may rightfully employ.

[Signed:]
Code:
 F. Cardinal of Ascoli
B. Cardinal Gessi
G. Cardinal Bentivoglio
F. Cardinal Verospi
Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona
M. Cardinal Ginetti
Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio

[Three judges did not sign the sentence: Francesco Barberini, Caspar Borgia, and Laudivio Zacchia.]
Source: Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (University of Chicago Press 1955), pp. 306-310."***

Was this ruling an error of faith or simply a difference of opinion or an example of fallibility that was dealt with embarrassingly harsh)?
Does that mean that matters of abortion, same sex marriage, birth control,etc are also, simply differences of opinion that can be dealt with as any organization is entitled, as it sees fit at the time but so long as you remain a Catholic, and your conscience is properly clear, means nothing to our Father in Heaven?
Please note I am asking questions.
chan26
 
***We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from similar delinquencies, we ordain that the book of the “Dialogues of Galileo Galilei” be prohibited by public edict.

We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week at the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance.

And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain, and reserve in this and in any other better way and form which we can and may rightfully employ.

[Signed:]
Code:
 F. Cardinal of Ascoli
B. Cardinal Gessi
G. Cardinal Bentivoglio
F. Cardinal Verospi
Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona
M. Cardinal Ginetti
Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio

[Three judges did not sign the sentence: Francesco Barberini, Caspar Borgia, and Laudivio Zacchia.]
Source: Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (University of Chicago Press 1955), pp. 306-310."***

Was this ruling an error of faith or simply a difference of opinion or an example of fallibility that was dealt with embarrassingly harsh)?
Does that mean that matters of abortion, same sex marriage, birth control,etc are also, simply differences of opinion that can be dealt with as any organization is entitled, as it sees fit at the time but so long as you remain a Catholic, and your conscience is properly clear, means nothing to our Father in Heaven?
Please note I am asking questions.
chan26
It is not a ruling of faith, but of Church Law… Church law can be right or wrong, but it does not put us in error.
 
The Catholic Church hasn’t because we have the charism of infallibility and cannot err from the faith.

However, if I am correct, the Orthodox do not share in the same charism of infallibility as we do.

From this, has the Orthodox Church ever taught anything contradictory?

Thank you.
While admitting that I do not know Orthodoxy much, I can only think for the moment, in two areas: (1) divorce and remarriage and (2) rejection of the Pope. That is if these are their official doctrine especially (2).
 
The Papacy, divorce and remarriage, and Purgatory would be the big three. However, you will find a different teaching from place to place in regards to the use of condoms as a method of birth control, as well as the use of other contraceptives. Most times, there us a condemnation of most forms, however I don’t know enough to be specific as to which Church condemns what practice.

Whatever the case we have to pray that the Orthodox churches may come into full communion, so that we may be one once again, and I think St Petersburg would be the ideal intercession along with the angels, saints, and the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God and of the Church.
 
The Catholic Church hasn’t because we have the charism of infallibility and cannot err from the faith.

However, if I am correct, the Orthodox do not share in the same charism of infallibility as we do.

From this, has the Orthodox Church ever taught anything contradictory?

Thank you.
The Catholic Church teaches she is Infallible in both the person of the Pope in matters of Faith & Morals AND in the decrees/canons of her Ecumenical Councils. From a historical perspective this doesn’t seem to hold water because the person of the Pope, Pope Honorius, taught in writing to another Patriach, Patriarch Sergios, that Jesus Christ had only one Will after that Patriarch had asked the Pope what he should believe/teach to the Faithful under him. As a result, the following Ecumenical Councils condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic & place him under anathema for he taught in writing to “acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ”. In the 1800s Catholics did not all accept Papal Infallibility, historians argued against Papal Infallibility in part because it wasn’t historical & because of example that it’s not true in Pope Honorius.

The Orthodox Church believes that she is Infallible in the decrees/canons of the Ecumenical Councils. While individuals in the Orthodox Church, even Bishops & Patriarchs, have taught error/heresy, the Orthodox Church has not.
 
The Catholic Church teaches she is Infallible in both the person of the Pope in matters of Faith & Morals AND in the decrees/canons of her Ecumenical Councils. From a historical perspective this doesn’t seem to hold water because the person of the Pope, Pope Honorius, taught in writing to another Patriach, Patriarch Sergios, that Jesus Christ had only one Will after that Patriarch had asked the Pope what he should believe/teach to the Faithful under him. As a result, the following Ecumenical Councils condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic & place him under anathema for he taught in writing to “acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ”. In the 1800s Catholics did not all accept Papal Infallibility, historians argued against Papal Infallibility in part because it wasn’t historical & because of example that it’s not true in Pope Honorius.

The Orthodox Church believes that she is Infallible in the decrees/canons of the Ecumenical Councils. While individuals in the Orthodox Church, even Bishops & Patriarchs, have taught error/heresy, the Orthodox Church has not.
Come Home,

Have you considered Pope Honorius in this light?
Critics of Papal Infallibility feel that this example demolishes the doctrine once and for all. Here, they contend, is an example of a pope teaching error. After his death, an ecumenical council (The Third Council of Constantinople) condemned him. What could be more contradictory than an infallible pope being condemned by an infallible council? However, in their excitement the critics have overlooked something – the facts.
The controversy stems from a letter that Pope Honorius wrote to Sergius, a Monothelite heretic. The Monothelite heresy maintained that Jesus had only one will, a divine will. The Church had always taught that Jesus was fully God and fully man. As such, He had both a divine and a human will. Before the heresy was widely known, Sergius sought to get the pope’s approval by deception. In a letter to the pope he stated that Jesus never opposed the Father. Consequently, if two persons agree they may be spoken of as being of “one will.” The pope, unaware of Sergius’ deception, answered to the subject of Christ’s “opposition” to the Father. He wrote in part: “We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ…Since Christ’s human will is faultless there can be no talk of opposing wills.” Subsequently, Monothelites fraudulently used this statement as proof that the pope believed with them that Christ had no human will.
Pope Honorius was deceived and then misrepresented. Furthermore, the Third Council of Constantinople condemned him for inaction, but not for teaching heresy. In any event, his letter was private.
 
Come Home,

Have you considered Pope Honorius in this light?
I considered Pope Honorius in light of the languaged used by the Ecumenical Councils when they condemned him as a heretic. It’s been a while since I last read them; however, I don’t recall them condemning him for inaction - I remember the Councils condemned him for heresy.

It is interesting that in that light you quoted, the author was attempting to shift the blame off the Pope for what the Pope taught clearly in his own writing. The shifting of blame reminds me of what Scott Hahn once pointed out about the first sin with Adam & Eve, that God asked Adam ‘What have you done?’ & Adam shifted the blame & basically said, it’s your fault, you gave me this woman & she deceived me. Then Eve basically said, it’s not fault, the devil made me do it 😉 Scott Hahn called it “the original passing of the buck” 😃 I think the Ecumenical Councils guided by the Holy Spirit got it right by condemning both Pope Honorius & Patriarch Sergios as heretics as both taught/wrote that Jesus had one Will and anathemas placed against both of them.

In light of the dogma decreed in the 1800s re: the Papacy, it’s certainly understandable Why some now would attempt to shift the blame Away from Pope Honorius. The Catholics who fought against Papal Infallibility in the 1800s did cite his condemnation as proof that it’s not a valid dogma. What are the names of the Catholic Churches that split from the Catholic Church after Papal Infallibility was made dogma? I think there were 2 or 3 large groups of Catholics. I just can’t remember the names.
 
I considered Pope Honorius in light of the languaged used by the Ecumenical Councils when they condemned him as a heretic. It’s been a while since I last read them; however, I don’t recall them condemning him for inaction - I remember the Councils condemned him for heresy.

It is interesting that in that light you quoted, the author was attempting to shift the blame off the Pope for what the Pope taught clearly in his own writing. The shifting of blame reminds me of what Scott Hahn once pointed out about the first sin with Adam & Eve, that God asked Adam ‘What have you done?’ & Adam shifted the blame & basically said, it’s your fault, you gave me this woman & she deceived me. Then Eve basically said, it’s not fault, the devil made me do it 😉 Scott Hahn called it “the original passing of the buck” 😃 I think the Ecumenical Councils guided by the Holy Spirit got it right by condemning both Pope Honorius & Patriarch Sergios as heretics as both taught/wrote that Jesus had one Will and anathemas placed against both of them.

In light of the dogma decreed in the 1800s re: the Papacy, it’s certainly understandable Why some now would attempt to shift the blame Away from Pope Honorius. The Catholics who fought against Papal Infallibility in the 1800s did cite his condemnation as proof that it’s not a valid dogma. What are the names of the Catholic Churches that split from the Catholic Church after Papal Infallibility was made dogma? I think there were 2 or 3 large groups of Catholics. I just can’t remember the names.
ComeHome,

If you can’t recall the names then they were probably not important.🙂
 
Well, the fact that they reject the pope is a biggie. However, I have friends who are Orthodox and in the past when they’ve tried to explain the differences in their beliefs from Catholic beliefs, I’ve generally found that they either misunderstand the Catholic teaching in question or they are making a distinction without a difference.
 
Well, the fact that they reject the pope is a biggie. However, I have friends who are Orthodox and in the past when they’ve tried to explain the differences in their beliefs from Catholic beliefs, I’ve generally found that they either misunderstand the Catholic teaching in question or they are making a distinction without a difference.
Usually they are right when they say there is a difference. There are differences, and they may be subtle, but they create a radically different approach to life, faith, and theology.
 
ComeHome, you’re thinking of the Old Catholic Church for one, and possibly the Polish National Church was in that group as well? You’re right, several very large groups broke away as a result of the formal Roman Church teaching what they regarded as heresy.

To all the other posters, I’d point out that the OP isn’t asking if we believe something different from you, that is obvious. He’s asking if we believe or have ‘proclaimed’ something which is contradictory. Holding that Christ is fully God and fully Man, but only the Man was crucified, or saying that Mary bore Christ but cannot be called the Theotokos - these are doctrines which are contradictory between themselves, not just different from Roman Catholic doctrines.

The answer, btw, is no.
 
ComeHome, you’re thinking of the Old Catholic Church for one, and possibly the Polish National Church was in that group as well? You’re right, several very large groups broke away as a result of the formal Roman Church teaching what they regarded as heresy.
Thanks, yes those are the ones I was thinking of.
 
The Catholic Church hasn’t because we have the charism of infallibility and cannot err from the faith.

However, if I am correct, the Orthodox do not share in the same charism of infallibility as we do.

From this, has the Orthodox Church ever taught anything contradictory?

Thank you.
The only true orthodoxy is the Bible. Here are a few Orthodox statements from the Bible
which churches today sometimes differ.

1 Tim 3 (The Bishop)
Num 5(Holy water)
1 tim 2:5 (One Mediator)
Mat 6:5-13(vain repetition)
Jer 7:18 (Queen of Heaven)
1Cor10:4 (The Rock)
Gal 2:7 (Peter The Apostle to the Jews)
Mat 23:9 (Father, a title?)
2Tim3:16 (scripture is the authority)
Mat 1:25 (Mary and Joseph)
1Cor 4:8-13 (Apostles’ qualities)
Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:21,38 (Proper Baptism)
Rom 10:9-13 (Salvation)
 
The only true orthodoxy is the Bible. Here are a few Orthodox statements from the Bible
which churches today sometimes differ.

1 Tim 3 (The Bishop)
Num 5(Holy water)
1 tim 2:5 (One Mediator)
Mat 6:5-13(vain repetition)
Jer 7:18 (Queen of Heaven)
1Cor10:4 (The Rock)
Gal 2:7 (Peter The Apostle to the Jews)
Mat 23:9 (Father, a title?)
2Tim3:16 (scripture is the authority)
Mat 1:25 (Mary and Joseph)
1Cor 4:8-13 (Apostles’ qualities)
Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:21,38 (Proper Baptism)
Rom 10:9-13 (Salvation)
You’re off topic.
 
Well if you can show me a contradiction between the seven eccumenical councils go ahead. Those seven eccumenical councisls being the only infallible and universal guides to church teaching in the orhtodox church which must be believed in, they, unlike local councils which may or may not contradict each other, are the official position of the universal church as a whole. I would also point out that unlike the rigid dogmatic definition of rome concerning the faith, Orthodoxy allows for a difference of opinion on different subjects, while keeping the core of the faith and a very consistent universally held tradition which does not need an eccumenical council or all powerful Pope to enforce. We don’t need a council of infallible proclamation of hte pope to agree universally that Mary was ever virgin.

It isn’t perfect (Like Rome isn’t perfect), but inspite of the hurdles the church faces, the unity the orthodox have is something great and spectacular in spite of the lack of a single head other than Christ. .
 
The only true orthodoxy is the Bible. Here are a few Orthodox statements from the Bible
which churches today sometimes differ.

1 Tim 3 (The Bishop)
Num 5(Holy water)
1 tim 2:5 (One Mediator)
Mat 6:5-13(vain repetition)
Jer 7:18 (Queen of Heaven)
1Cor10:4 (The Rock)
Gal 2:7 (Peter The Apostle to the Jews)
Mat 23:9 (Father, a title?)
2Tim3:16 (scripture is the authority)
Mat 1:25 (Mary and Joseph)
1Cor 4:8-13 (Apostles’ qualities)
Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:21,38 (Proper Baptism)
Rom 10:9-13 (Salvation)
Mike,

What measuring stick are you using

The accepted Bible that included the DC

or

Protocanonicals that existed only for the last 500 years?
 
Well if you can show me a contradiction between the seven eccumenical councils go ahead. Those seven eccumenical councisls being the only infallible and universal guides to church teaching in the orhtodox church which must be believed in, they, unlike local councils which may or may not contradict each other, are the official position of the universal church as a whole.
I was waiting for an Orthodox Christian to say that Ecumenical Councils are infallible. In my copy of the Orthodox Study Bible, the glossary description on councils (including ecumenical ones) states that they are not infallible. So which is it? Does the Orthodox Church consider EC’s to be infallible or not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top