Donating money to the Orthodox Church?

[missionseeker]

It's exactly like the SSPX- schismatics, not heretics.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='missionseeker' date='Apr 5 2006, 10:16 PM']It's exactly like the SSPX- schismatics, not heretics.
[right][snapback]937307[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


we speak of them as schismatics, because the schism was not over doctrinal matters, but it was pure schism. Because the Patriarch of Constantinople hated Rome. But.... they do not accept the the 14 Councils of the church after the schism. each of these councils Definded Dogma (except for Vatican II). The Orthodox Reject this dogma. So because of this they are Anathema.

[quote]in the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. [b]Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic.[/b] Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)[/quote]

Since the Orthodox Deny our Infallibile Dogmas they are heretics.

[Crusader_4]

Its important there they dont deny these dogmas...they just havent been able to conclusivley accept them. They would have to believe them in the first place and then deny them one argument goes, not my argument but one nonetheless.

The simple fact is that due to the stiation of the church in the schism it cannot define doctrine like this and as such cannot deny nor affirm Catholic dogma. thus it does not make them heretics on in schism.
As well the Pope has NEVER reffered to the orthodox as Heretics but rather as in Schism as the ONLY catholic truths they do not accept are the papal claim to authority not other doctrines they have just not affirmed them yet.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Crusader_4

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Crusader_4' date='Apr 5 2006, 10:43 PM']Its important there they dont deny these dogmas...they just havent been able to conclusivley accept them.  They would have to believe them in the first place and then deny them one argument goes, not my argument but one nonetheless. 

The simple fact is that due to the stiation of the church in the schism it cannot define doctrine like this and as such cannot deny nor affirm Catholic dogma.  thus it does not make them heretics on in schism.
As well the Pope has NEVER reffered to the orthodox as Heretics but rather as in Schism as the ONLY catholic truths they do not accept are the papal claim to authority not other doctrines they have just not affirmed them yet.
[right][snapback]937349[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

stop using Modernist double speak. by not accepting Dogma they deny it, thus they are heretics. its not a hard concept.

[Crusader_4]

The do not deny it tho...show me a formal Orthodox church document that denies the immaculate conception. The orthodox church does not have the means to define doctrine because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome and thus they are schismatics.
This is what New Advent writes explicitly about the Orthodox Schism

"There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism."

The orthodox sole complain for not being in commuinion with rome is not about teaching or doctrine but papal authority and thus is not classified as heresy, it is schism.

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 6 2006, 10:25 AM']stop using Modernist double speak. by not accepting Dogma they deny it, thus they are heretics. its not a hard concept.
[right][snapback]937764[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I agree with the definition and your views. According to what you have said they are heretics. The Magisterium have not labeled them heretics though because they are still working together to work in full communion with each other. However, if when they are in full communion and they decide to not accept the dogmas that you mentioned then they become heretics.

[AngelofJesus]

"officially heretics"

[Theoketos]

WHoaoaoaoa WHOA

Planned Parenthood is WAAAAAAAAAAY worse then the Russian Orthodox Church.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Apr 6 2006, 08:42 PM']WHoaoaoaoa WHOA

Planned Parenthood is WAAAAAAAAAAY worse then the Russian Orthodox Church.
[right][snapback]938243[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

no really?


like, duh.

[rkwright]

Schismatics not heretics...

From New advent 1st paragraph on Eastern Schism
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm[/url]
[quote]The great Eastern Schism must not be conceived as the result of only one definite quarrel. It is not true that after centuries of perfect peace, suddenly on account of one dispute, nearly half of Christendom fell away. Such an event would be unparalleled in history, at any rate, unless there were some great heresy, and in this quarrel there was no heresy at first, nor has there ever been a hopeless disagreement about the Faith. It is a case, perhaps the only prominent case, of a pure schism, of a breach of intercommunion caused by anger and bad feeling, not by a rival theology.[/quote]

Mutual Excommunications were lifted in 1965.

As for the issues you say they 'deny' (which is a dubious claim to make since they haven't had a council since Nicea II in which to deny anything)...

[quote]There is not really any question of doctrine involved. [b]It is not a heresy[/b], but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.[/quote]

The IC - some hold to it, some don't, but the offical position is no position. Its not against their tradition to believe in or against it. They don't see it necessary to make it dogma one way or the other

Orginal Sin - I don't know what you're pulling from that says they deny Catholic Orginal Sin... They don't deny Orginal Sin... they don't like certain ways that Augustine talked about it, but their stance was ok while they were in the Church (your own article says that they never really accepted it assuming while they were still in communion with rome...)

[Crusader_4]

I completly agree with rkwright, well put man (im assuming ur a man)

Edited April 7, 2006 by Crusader_4

[Crusader_4]

It is also important to note that the Eastern Orthodox as well as the EAstern catholics are not particularly fond of Augustine's work and dont always find his writings accomodating to their tradition. (not a bad thing or good thing just the way their tradition of understanding sin is, particularly original sin)

[rkwright]

[quote name='Crusader_4' date='Apr 6 2006, 11:41 PM']It is also important to note that the Eastern Orthodox as well as the EAstern catholics are not particularly fond of Augustine's work and dont always find his writings accomodating to their tradition.  (not a bad thing or good thing just the way their tradition of understanding sin is, particularly original sin)
[right][snapback]938658[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I may be reaching here... but I think theres even parts of Augustine's version of Orginal Sin the Catholic Church doesn't hold to...

[Crusader_4]

Well i know that Augustine believed even infants were destined to hell if left unbaptised which is not a common belief now among theologians, this i believe was one example.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Apr 6 2006, 09:42 PM']WHoaoaoaoa WHOA

Planned Parenthood is WAAAAAAAAAAY worse then the Russian Orthodox Church.
[right][snapback]938243[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Exactly. I didn't mean to say that the ROC was bad or anything, that's probably how it came out though. It's just people were talking about how the ROC was heretical and they don't do anything wrong, so I was trying to say, look at the bright side, it's better than giving to PP. If they're trying to convert ppl to Christ, that's awesome and I know we're getting close to being in full communion. I did not mean to make the ROC sound bad at all

If that wasn't directed at what I said, then that's cool, I'm just saying if it was, here's my response