Donating money to the Orthodox Church?

[dspen2005]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 2 2006, 07:28 AM']well im not positive what to call them. but they are heretics, because they deny the dogmas of original sin, the immaculate conception of Mary, and Papal infallibility.
[right][snapback]933115[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i grant papal infallibility... but they believe in the IC and original sin...

how do they not?

[dspen2005]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Apr 2 2006, 07:42 AM']I'd rather give to them than to Planned Parenthood
[right][snapback]933120[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

that's reassuring

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Craftygrl06' date='Mar 31 2006, 01:32 PM']And if I do quit, who's going to help me find a job
[right][snapback]929743[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I will!

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Apr 2 2006, 07:17 PM']i grant papal infallibility... but they believe in the IC and original sin...

how do they not?
[right][snapback]933554[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus, published December 8, 1854 (the Feast of the Immaculate Conception).


this was exactly 800 years after the schism of the Orthodox.

[quote]Eastern Orthodoxy acknowledges that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind, but denies (or rather never accepted) Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[6] The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act continue and plague the world.[/quote]

so they deny both of those Dogmas.

[dspen2005]

u don't mention that the validity of that Wikipedia entry is questioned... if you are going to purport a source... at least make it reputable.

secondly, the orthodox question the face of Dogmatically defining the IC, it is my understanding that the orthodox believe in the IC, but see no need of defining it...

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Apr 2 2006, 07:45 PM']u don't mention that the validity of that Wikipedia entry is questioned... if you are going to purport a source... at least make it reputable.

secondly, the orthodox question the face of Dogmatically defining the IC, it is my understanding that the orthodox believe in the IC, but see no need of defining it...
[right][snapback]933578[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


that is not true.

Some do. some do not. many i have talked to DO NOT believe in the Immaculate conception. and it is true that the orthodox deny the Dogma of original Sin definded by the Catholic church. Regardless, they still reject Papal infallibility, and all the Ecumenical Councils after the schism that definded Dogma. Because of this they are heretics.

[missionseeker]

no, the Church teaches they are schismatics. (even before 1965)

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='missionseeker' date='Apr 2 2006, 09:58 PM']no, the Church teaches they are schismatics. (even before 1965)
[right][snapback]933718[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


they are schismatics. but they are also heretics because (one again i will say it)

Deny the Immaculate conception (dogma)

Original sin (dogma)

Papal Infallibility (dogma)

this makes them heretics


heresy is Deciding for oneself what one shall believe and practise instead of accepting the truth taught by Christ, and His moral teachings.

this falls under that category.

[dspen2005]

[url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html"]Catholic View of Orthodoxy[/url]

tell me where heresy is mentioned... i do not deny the schism, i deny the application of the term heresy to the Orthodox. If you can show me that this is the position of the Church, i will recant my statement

[Crusader_4]

The Orthodox are not heretics this is very important...many many orthodox would be offended to be called that. I live in a province in Canada where the Orthodox church and CAtholic church work very well together and altho there is the formal schism there is great respect. Now having said that the official teaching from my understanding is that the Orthodox do not REJECT any of these dogmas...however since the Church cannot call a true ecumenical council in their eyes they cannot affirm them either....it is in a way a sort of limbo (im not sure if this is 100% kosher or not) but it is my understnading of it. So to say they deny those dogmas i think is simply untrue and the Orthodox view of Original sin is slightly different then the latin view of it...same with the Eastern Rite Catholic churches view original sin and the immaculate conception differently then the latin church and as a result there is often misconception with definitions between the terms. We must also be careful (im not saying you are here at all i dont think u have) but just for teh future that we cannot define the Eastern Churches and Oriental Churches (both in communion with Peter and not) by our latin terms and understnading they have a valid Tradition and Apostolic succesion that is truly unique to their respective rites and to define them by our latin terms is often to greatly misunderstand them. But it is important as the Church has affirmed to understand the Orthodox as they are a unique situation for Catholics they are not like Protestants who are practicing heresy....they are in Schism. Now having said that due to the close and might i say close relations with the vatican and the Orthodox Churches and the Church encouraging us to work together with the Orthodox churches i see no reason in helping the orthodox church out with its mission...however as long as its not directly contrary to the Catholic mission there are very few missionaries (catholic that is) in Alaska it has been predominatly a very Orthodox region (several orthodox saints i believe come from alaska) it is much better for the Orthodox as well as they have VALID apostolic succesion and Sacraments. For example, if a Catholic is in a region where a catholic church is not (there are limited catholic churches for example in Greece) it is permissable and even encouraged if the local Orthodox church allows to receive communion and perhaps even confession in that region from an orthodox priest. So therefore i see no reason in giving money and perhaps even aiding (aiding if the Catholic church is not present) if it is i still have no problem with giving money as long as of course you are supporting your parish and its missions. My two cents.

[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...)