Poll: Do you consider Eastern Orthodox Christians to be heretics (either formal or material)?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
18
0%
0 0%
16
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Eastern Orthodoxy
#19
(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: The Eastern "Orthodox" are heretics and schismatics.

Heresies:
- Denial of the double procession of the Holy Ghost.

Depends what you mean by double procession. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That's why the Orthodox make such a deal about language, it confuses people.
Quote:...
The Latin word procedere, on the other hand, with its related noun processio, suggests simply “movement forwards,” without the added implication of the starting-point of that movement; thus it is used to translate a number of other Greek theological terms, including proienai, and is explicitly taken by Thomas Aquinas to be a general term denoting “origin of any kind” (Summa Theologiae I, q. 36, a.2), including – in a Trinitarian context - the Son’s generation as well as the breathing-forth of the Spirit and his mission in time. As a result, both the primordial origin of the Spirit in the eternal Father and his “coming forth” from the risen Lord tend to be designated, in Latin, by the same word, procedere, while Greek theology normally uses two dif­­fer­ent terms. Although the difference between the Greek and the Latin tradi­tions of under­standing the eternal origin of the Spirit is more than simply a verbal one, much of the ori­gi­nal concern in the Greek Church over the insertion of the word Filioque into the Latin trans­lation of the Creed of 381 may well have been due – as Maximus the Confessor explained (Letter to Marinus: PG 91.133-136) - to a misunder­standing on both sides of the different ranges of meaning implied in the Greek and Latin terms for “procession”.

...

Much of the difference between the early Latin and Greek traditions on this point is clearly due to the subtle difference of the Latin procedere from the Greek ekporeuesthai: as we have observed, the Spirit’s “coming forth” is designated in a more general sense by the Latin term, without the connotation of ultimate origin hinted at by the Greek. The Spirit’s “procession” from the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his “procession” from the Father, even when – as in the explanations of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas – the relationship of Father and Son to the Holy Spirit is spoken of as constituting “a single principle” of the Spirit’s origin: even in breathing forth the Spirit together, according to these later Latin theologians, the Father retains priority, giving the Son all that he has and making possible all that he does. ...
http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: - Denial of the previous 13 Ecumenical Councils (Constantinople IV - Vatican I [I did not omit a Roman numeral])

Ex post facto heretics? Nice...

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: - Denial that Holy Orders creates an indelible mark ("Orthodox" priests who have left this sect and returned are sometimes unconditionally re-ordained).

This, again, is theologoumena. Some Orthodox do. There is not as much dogma, so it depends on the receiving bishop. It is true the common Orthodox refection is the source of authority is from the Church alone, not from the individual. Therefore, if the individual is separated from the Church, he is separated from his Holy Authority.

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: - Denial of Original Sin (they term it 'ancestral' sin and do not consider it hereditary, but assumed by humanity per se after the fall).

Original Sin and Ancestral Sin are almost identical. The difference is the Orthodox do not regard any assumption of guilt from the fall. An encyclical from the Vatican in 2007 proclaimed the same thing.

Quote:"It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ts_en.html

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: - Denial of Purgatory.

The Orthodox are purgatorial, but have no doctrine of the state of "Purgatory", for the same reason they don't accept council convened after their split. The main difference is the concept of final judgment, not the purgation after death.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: - Affirmal of Pelagianism.

The orthodox do not accept the doctrine attributed to Pelagius, i.e. one can find God through one's own efforts without God. Instead, they acknowledge basically the same thing Roman Catholic's believe, which is a synergistic effort between God's loving gift and the individual's free will to accept or reject that gift.

Quote:1742 Freedom and grace. the grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials, such as those we face in the pressures and constraints of the outer world. By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5O.HTM
http://books.google.com/books?id=cymM4xE...&q&f=false

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: They are obviously schismatic as they do not submit to the office of the Papacy.

They deny Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. They do not find it supported by tradition or Patristics in any form. Many Orthodox acknowledge a Primacy of the Pope, as a first among equals, however.

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: Contrary to modernist heresy they do not form a Church. Christ established one Church, the Catholic Church. The Eastern "Orthodox" Church is a man-made creation of 1054 by schismatic Catholic bishops.

They say the same about Roman Catholics. "a man-made creation revolving around the attempted power grab of the Roman Patriarch, and the vote was four to one".
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Eastern Orthodoxy - by Resurrexi - 10-17-2010, 06:17 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Azurestone - 10-17-2010, 06:21 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Resurrexi - 10-17-2010, 06:27 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Vetus Ordo - 10-17-2010, 06:28 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Resurrexi - 10-17-2010, 06:43 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by spasiisochrani - 10-17-2010, 07:50 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Resurrexi - 10-17-2010, 09:53 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by SaintSebastian - 10-17-2010, 10:27 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Resurrexi - 10-17-2010, 11:19 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by moneil - 10-18-2010, 01:11 AM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Resurrexi - 10-18-2010, 01:46 AM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by moneil - 10-18-2010, 02:27 AM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by SaintSebastian - 10-18-2010, 09:49 AM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Resurrexi - 10-18-2010, 07:31 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Resurrexi - 10-18-2010, 07:44 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Robert De Brus - 10-18-2010, 08:16 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by kevinchaapel - 11-08-2010, 06:27 AM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Mixolydian - 11-17-2010, 12:54 AM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Azurestone - 11-17-2010, 03:39 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Vetus Ordo - 11-17-2010, 04:12 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Azurestone - 11-17-2010, 04:21 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by 3Sanctus - 11-17-2010, 04:45 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Vetus Ordo - 11-17-2010, 07:50 PM
Re: Eastern Orthodoxy - by Azurestone - 11-17-2010, 08:44 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)