It is my understanding that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept purgatory.
They do accept purgatory. Protestants do not. The Orthodox do. Purgatory was already a dogma before the great schism. The dogmas that are not part of the Orthodox deposit of faith are those that came after the schism.
That was really the Immaculate Conception. Because the Eastern Church was the one that introduced the Assumption of Mary, before the schism. They also introduced the conept of the filioque. The problem with the filioque is that the wording is different between east and west. The Orthodox, as the word says, are very uncomfortable with any wording that they feel is confusing. We do not diagree on the filoque, but on how to say it.
The same applies to the words of consecration. The words in the scripture are “for you” in one gospel and “for the many” in another. Somewhere in the process of rewriting the missals, the words became, “for all”. It is understood that Jesus died for all. That is not the problem. The issue is whether we leave it as it was meant “for all” or as it was said “for the many”. The Congregation on Sacraments and Liturgy would like to see it as it was written, but only for the Latin rite, not for the other rites. The rules for them are different.
As to the other concerns that you mention: women, veils, communion, those are not matters of faith and dogma. They were disciplines. The Church reserves the right to change those at any time.
The ordination of women is a tricky topic. It is not defined as dogma, but accepted as part of the Christian tradition that clerics must be men. The issue is not whether a female priest is against dogma, but whether the Church has the authority to change this particular tradition that was started by Jesus himself. It was not started by the Church, as were other traditions. The conlcusion is that we cannot change traditions that Jesus himself started and that the Apostles taught are essential.
Eastern patriarchs in communion with the Bishop of Rome have a place within the Church. Those who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome are still valid bishops with legitimate apostolic succession, legitimate sacraments, and legitimate authority over their churches. In fact, they are no longer excommunicated, nor are we by them. This is important, because we often forget that they too have the authority to excommunicate, because they are bishops. They did excommunicate the Latin Church. The mutual excommunications have been lifted. The status is one of sister Churches.
Anglican orders are more complex, because the Anglican Christians had bishops with apostolic succession, but when the king began to appoint bishops the succession was lost in the sense that we do not know who is validly consecrated and ordained and who is not. It is better to assume that they do not have valid orders and ordain any Anglican priest who converts.
The Eastern Orthodox position on original sin is not really considered heresy. But there is an issue with the understanding, because their understanding is that which was in place during the schism. Our understanding was formulated and agreed upon after they left. They have some catching up to do.
Idiots at mass: clowns etc, is already disappearing. All around the world bishops and religous superiors are realizing that some of these attempts to make the mass “more meaningful” were silly at best and offensive to the reverence that is due to the liturgy. That does not mean that you will never see someone do something dumb. It just means that it is being shot down by those in authority as quickly as they see it happen.
Women without headcoverings was never a doctrine. It was a law. Laws can and do change. Just as there was a law that bishops had to wear the bishop’s clothing. Today, the law says that if a bishop is a religious friar or monk, he remains a friar or monk the rest of his life and wears his habit, not the cassock with the purple buttons and sash.
There was a law that priest had to call themselves Father. Today the law says that a priest who is a friar or a monk, retains his title, Brother or Friar, because this was the intent of the founders of those orders.
Laws can be changed. It takes time for people to get used to them, that’s all. I say this because in my own parish people needed time to get used to calling our priests Brother and having a superior who is not a priest. It was always the case where the pastor was a priest and the superior. Now our pastor is still an ordained brother, but he is not the superior of the house. He answers to a lay brother. You can’t tell the lay brothers and the priest brothers apart, because they wear the same clothing and they all have degrees in theology, ministry, and other sciences. They even take turns at being porter, cook, housekeeper, gardner, etc.
Hope this helps to sort out the difference between sacred tradition, laws, and doctrine.
Fraternally,
JR
, which is what the term Limbo meant.
Most of the modified responses seemed to have to do with avoiding the horrible, offensive words “He” or “Him.”