It really annoys me when I hear Latins claim Orthodoxy is basically just Roman Catholicism without a Pope...

Have you never heard of Baptists? Are you being disingenuous on purpose?

You forgot the abuse of allowing not allowing remarriage after divorce up to 3 times

Notice how I said Protestants and not Baptists or Lutherans or Anglicans. This is all their beliefs combined.

shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/

shamelessorthodoxy.com/2017/05/09/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-an-addendum/

You might want to check up the word "allowing" first.

Also out of curiosity do you see the rejection of Aerial Toll Houses as a heretical view

Tell me something in Aquinas' five ways and in natural law that makes them invalid due to this pagan philosophical influence.

I assume you're talking about the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle? Yes, they were pagans, but they were extremely bright and, unfortunately for your case, influential. Much of the foundation of western society is predicated on their ideas, going back to antiquity. If you want to dispute transubstantiation on the basis of paganism, you must not only refute much of the wellspring of ideas we still draw from, but also put something as worthy of contemplation in their stead.
Don't take this as discouragement, beloved- if you can do that, it would be truly amazing, and quash the growth of those so-called "revival" practices. Just know you've much work to do.

Not at all. It is an established tradition.

Thomas Aquinas is heterodox. Sure sometimes heretics and heathens can get things right, that doesn't mean they should be primarily used or expounded upon in all aspects of the faith like the mystery of the Eucharist. Heathen philosophy directly lead to heresies like the Latin conception of Divine Simplicity.

It's not on the basis of paganism, it's on the basis of heathen philosophy attempting to explain something that is no explainable. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is uniquely a Latin heresy and not found in the Church Fathers. The Eucharist simply becomes the body and blood of Christ and ceases to be bread and wine. How this happens is a mystery and was a mystery to Christians in all ages until Latin heretics attempted to use heathen philosophy to explain it. Unless God himself tells us how it happens (which I doubt we could ever comprehend anyway even if he did tell us) we cannot know what kind of change in happening in the Eucharist, all that can rightfully be said is that bread and wine cease to be and Christ becomes fully present.

So why is it still controversial within Orthodoxy?

It's not that controversial. Many major modern Orthodox authorities have taught it.

A group can still reject it and be in good standing - likewise its teaching and prominence seems to be a particularly erratic.

orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_pomaz.aspx

I've heard it described as both believe the same things only Catholics affirm more.

Thomism is infinitely beautiful and true, that's not going anywhere. And Original Sin makes perfect sense, bruh.

Attached: original sin.png (640x399, 45.3K)

maybe it's different in Orthodoxy, and you're probably more scripturally literate, but so much of how we interpret the scripture comes from outside of it in our church. Plenty of historical context was left out of the Fathers' writings, the same way you would not think to record all the details of etymology for common sayings heard today in a history of America. Alexander the Great had ripped through just some ages before; Hellenic had become part of the air they breathed, the way so much of our beliefs were in times past. Just because it isn't brought up, doesn't mean it isn't there.

without dogmatism all those 'heresies' are just theologoumenon and orthodox should have no problem accepting them when they come to their senses :^)

If you are a new convert start by learning some basic theology and read the life and teachings of the Saints, we have plenty. If by any means you are just an internet curious American who just watched some youtube videos go get baptized and start doing the above. These threads are meaningless.

t. actual Orthodox

wow op cathocuckism just got #rekd XXDDDD

guess i'll just begome ordodox now XDDD

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
St. Cyprian of Carthage
“Although the catholic churches diffused throughout the world are one bridal chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman church has been preferred to all other churches, not by any synodical decrees, but has obtained the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Savior in the gospel, saying: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven…..Therefore, the first see of Peter the Apostles is that of the Roman church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing
St. Damasus
"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources"
St. Hilary of Poitiers
God is truly and absolutely simple.
St. Augustine
We observe, then, that grace has more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a prophet's blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world: "He spake and they were made, He commanded and they were created." Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.
St. Ambrose
If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).
Council of Orange
And she was perplexed by this word; for she was inexperienced in all the addresses of men, and welcomed quiet, as the mother of prudence and purity; (yet) being a pure, and immaculate, and stainless image herself, she shrank not in terror from the angelic apparition, like most of the prophets, as indeed true virginity has a kind of affinity and equality with the angels
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus
And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, "created in Jesus Christ in good works."
If, then whether by forethought here, or by purgation hereafter, our soul becomes free from any emotional connection with the brute creation, there will be nothing to impede its contemplation of the Beautiful
St. Gregory of Nyssa

2. And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water).
3. But if thou hast neither, pour [water] thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Didache
As stated above, the age of the body does not affect the soul. Consequently even in childhood man can attain to the perfection of spiritual age, of which it is written (Wisdom 4:8): "Venerable old age is not that of long time, nor counted by the number of years." And hence it is that many children, by reason of the strength of the Holy Ghost which they had received, fought bravely for Christ even to the shedding of their blood.
But ye know that the ministerial office must be kept pure and unspotted, and must not be defiled by conjugal intercourse; ye know this, I say, who have received the gifts of the sacred ministry, with pure bodies, and unspoilt modesty, and without ever having enjoyed conjugal intercourse. I am mentioning this, because in some out-of-the-way places, when they enter on the ministry, or even when they become priests, they have begotten children. They defend this on the ground of old custom, when, as it happened, the sacrifice was offered up at long intervals. However, even the people had to be purified two or three days beforehand, so as to come clean to the sacrifice, as we read in the Old Testament. They even used to wash their clothes. If such regard was paid in what was only the figure, how much ought it to be shown in the reality ! Learn then, Priest and Levite, what it means to wash thy clothes. Thou must have a pure body wherewith to offer up the sacraments.
St. Ambrose

It's like the baptist who used to make 100 threads about Catholicism a day became orthodox

Do you have a legitimate issue with transubstantiation or is it just that you fear definition? You have a very eastern approach to things and although I'm considering eastern orthodoxy, this overt mysticism to the point of idiocracy has somewhat pushed me away from this faith.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity

Attached: 1518149796448.jpg (1000x1114, 153.8K)

Do you know what Panentheistic means?

Skepticism about the capacity of human beings to understand the nature of God and his miracles is hardly 'overt mysticism.'

Remember that even Dante put the philosophers in the first circle of hell.

Hello fellow orthoprot

The Council of Florence recognized these 6 as the causes for schism:
Let's not make up more problems than those that already separate us. Namely:

Not a heresy, and Palamas argues in favor of it (in fact, he brings up divine simplicity as proof that Barlaam's doctrine that grace is created is nonsense).

Hardly a "heresy". It's not because we didn't do the philosophical speculation the Latins did that we anathematize what they did. For what it's worth, in our doctrinal statements in response to Protestant heresies, we used the same terms.

A heresy? Really? Are you a Muslim?

Acceptable theologoumenon, as Gregory Palamas strongly defended it. The issue is with it being called a dogma, and with papal infallibility being invoked.

By "created grace", Catholics mean that the grace of God acts through creation and thus appears to have a "beginning" and an "end". This is exactly what Palamas says. The issue that comes next is whether said grace is itself a creature or not, but the only people I've heard say today that grace is a creature are the folks over at Most Meme Monastery.

Not ideal, but acceptable form. Not a "heresy", but a problem of praxis that originated from practical needs. Baptism of Catholics would be universally recognized as invalid otherwise.

Catholics have a very different understanding of chrismation and of marriage than we do, but this has been true since before the schism. There is no excuse to give people their first communion before their chrismation though.

Do you even know what "heresy" means…? Are you a 12th century Byzantine who traveled to the future by accident? Differences of praxis are not "heresies". They don't even need to be theological. Priestly celibacy is purely practical. And if your argument is that it is a heresy because it doesn't conform to the Byzantine practice, then episcopal celibacy should be a heresy since it wasn't the standard in the 1st century.

St John of Damascus was a scholastic, in fact he is called the father of scholasticism. The Byzantines in fact cherished scholasticism for centuries.

I think you're just throwing stuff at the wall and figuring out what sticks at this point.

Gee, I'm sure you've converted many people with this post. Surely now they are enlightened.
Be serious for a second… Reminding people that they're heterodox by our criteria is absolutely pointless, in the year 2018 when everybody knows that, on a forum board where we bicker about that daily. You're just parading around your pride in belonging to the Church of Christ.

You sound new here…

Ah, these are the Orthodox I am familiar with.

Honestly mates I'm freaking out over Catholic vs Orthodox.
I don't know where to go!!!
I'm struggling with this a lot…

We do have two threads here on cycle for each encampment, if a thread asking for advise doesn't work (there seems to be a few of those floating around right now) then you could ask them directly perhaps? I don't think either group would be against informing you on basic things to consider, despite not being formally of either section yet.

I compiled quotes from saints here:
You should also check out both Catholic Mass and Orthodox Divine Liturgy if you haven't done so yet. And ask priests questions.

It is because the autism in this place keeps you from taking action. Honestly, turn down the volume from here and walk into one. Talk to the priests of each. Take into account distance. Both are liturgical, so the closest one to you means that you can partake in liturgical life more deeply there. After all that, come back to this place.

Already done that. I just can't make up my mind at all…

Done this as well, maybe besides talking to priests about it. I went to both and prayed.
For me personally, I enjoy the Roman-Catholic Church more, since it's easier and more ~fun~ to worship.
I know this accounts for nothing, which keeps me from converting (I'm already officially Orthodox since birth).
I want not to do my will, but God's.

Almost OP, almost…

Attached: cab767ade8ad46dabe620962223a3895eadb38466c8e3e7db210da045c4402ca.jpg (512x512, 47.19K)

Roman Catholicism is the Latin flavor of Christianity. Of course there will be Latinisms and doctrinal emphasis that is oriented around the Latin mindset. There are similar flavors when it comes to Coptic Christianity, Greek Christianity, Assyrian Christianity, etc. Aren't Greek Orthodox people supposed to be in favor of liturgical decentralization, anyways?

The Eastern Orthodox communion has done a huge work of liturgical homogenization, to the point the Byzantine rite (in Greek and Slavic flavors) is the only rite that is left (if we ignore the few Western Rite parishes).
But I don't think you mean liturgical decentralization, but theological/traditional. However, there is a problem when one school of theology (case in point, the Roman one) claims to be the normative -and- sole correct and infallible school of theology, to the detriment of others, without first asking for the affirmation of other Patriarchs. This is what happened for the filioque (although it had been considered dogmatic by many Latin saints long before the schism, the claim wasn't pushed upon the Eastern churches since nobody really realized the two traditions were drifting apart), and the Eastern churches responded with a similar close-minded perspective by criticizing and condemning the Latin practices of shaving the beard, fasting on Saturdays, using unleavened bread for the Eucharist, and so on. Then, of course, the view that the Latin Church was heretical due to having different praxis (and so, logically, different faith) led to the conclusion that the grace that had been protecting the Church of Rome was not infallible, and the Pope loses his position as primate of the Church because of his doctrinal heterodoxy and lack of pastoral prudence.

In other words… While the OP clearly is nitpicking, there are issues with how certain aspects of Latin theology were proclaimed as dogma by the Church of Rome without much respect for Eastern sensitivities (even for Eastern Catholic sensitivities, as happened for Vatican I, although Vatican II took the opposite approach and was praised by many Orthodox as a result). It does not help that Lyons II tried to solve the schism by making the emperor convert and expecting the Orthodox to follow suit (ie, caesaropapism), while Florence's decrees end up being an almost complete concession to the Latin theological tradition, not having paid much respect to Mark of Ephesus and specifically Gennadius Scholarius's attempts to allow Greek theology to shine in a way that reflects Latin patristics.

Things have been changing since the past century, but overall the Latin and Greek mindsets were strongly aggressive to each other - the Latin because of the idea that the Roman Church's theology reigns supreme and is universally normative, the Greek because of the idea of a strong link between faith and praxis and because of the Latins' own stubborness (and add strong ignorance of actual Latin theology to that).

The quote you cited asserts papal primacy, not supremacy. Everybody concedes papal primacy, and the Orthodox Catholic Church fully accepted this doctrine until the Great Schism when Rome fell into heresy. From then the seat of primacy had to be shifted to Constantinople who at the moment remains first among equals and acts at the figurehead for the whole Orthodox Church. If Rome recants of it's various heresies and comes back into union with the Orthodox Church then it's former position as figurehead for the whole Orthodox Church and position of primacy over other Sees would certainly be reinstated. But for right now Rome is in heresy.

“Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as ‘successor of Peter’ in Carthage…For Cyprian, the ‘chair of Peter’, was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses ‘the power of the keys’ to remit sins. And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops” (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), pp. 61, 152).

And he's right. All bishops in the Orthodox Church occupy the chair of St. Peter because they share the faith of Peter, as Cyprian says,

"Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter." (St Cyprian of Carthage De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, cap. 4-5) "

For Cyprian Rome was merely the prime example for all other bishops in the Orthodox Church because Rome at the time was the prime example of who Peter at an apostle was and what he represented. Rome was indeed the center of the Christian world in terms of faith at the time, and whenever any bout of heresy arose everybody turned to Rome for the answers. But Cyprian certainly doesn't see Peter as being infallible when he says,

"Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed' (Epist. 71, 3)."

And again he says that no bishop has the right to set himself up as above other bishops when he says,

“No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Chirst, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein’ (CSEL 3, 1, 436)."

Once again, this is about Papal primacy and not supremacy or infallibility in anyway. Please see above. As I already wrote, Rome was the first among all Churches at the time, and was the center of the faith and it handled all disputes in the faith as an example of it's primacy. The Orthodox Catholic Church has always accepted this, but now this position has been moved to Constantinople due to Rome's heresy and now Constantinople acts in the same way as Rome originally did.

This is a faulty translation of the Latin here. St. Hilary wrote in that passage, "qui Patre et Filio auctoribus confitendus est." To read the ablative, "Patre et Filio auctoribus" as being an ablative of separation (which is how the two translations you gave are interpreting it) is questionable grammatically, because to use the ablative in such a manner without some preposition (ab, ex, de, etc.) or verb signalling motion away from or lack or want would be highly unusual. Likewise, to read it as an ablative of origin or descent would also be unusual (also possibly the interpretation of those who made the translations you provided), as there is no verb in the clause which signals origination or birth or any preposition which signals that this is the sense in which the ablative is used. It would be far more reasonable to read it as an ablative of means or of cause (both of which are not preceded by a preposition), such that the Father and the Son are the cause or means by which the Holy Spirit is to be believed, leading to Siecienski's suggested reading of, "we are bound to confess him on the evidence of the Father and the Son."

St. Augustine is truly blessed but he's not always the best to use in Cathodox debates since we believe that although he was holy he still made a lot of mistakes in his theology. The Orthodox Church also does not reject divine simplicity per se, only the Latin idea of it which confuses the energies and essence of God.

Again, Ambrose is merely speaking of the mystery of the Eucharist, not Transubstantiation. Orthodox Christians fully believe that the bread and wine cease to be in any sense and that the nature of them change into the the body and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Transubstantiation is a later philosophical definition of this doctrine developed in the west and rejected by the Orthodox Church. It is true that some Orthodox theologians attempted to use this definition and even some synods expounded on it, but the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches that there is no way in which the change can be truly explained and therefore rejects Transubstantiation as heretical in the sense that it attempts to explain the change which is not explainable.

This synod was heavily influenced by Augustinian theology on sin and the Orthodox Church has long rejected the validity of this council.

Nothing in that quote suggests Immaculate Conception, for Gregory of Thaumaturgus lived before the Augustinian definition. He is simply affirming the purity and sinlessness of the holy Theotokos which the Orthodox Church fully accepts.

Try again.

See: orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

Notice how it makes pouring the exception? The Orthodox Catholic Church accepts pouring baptism and even sprinkling baptism as valid but illicit except in cases of emergency or where immersion is impossible. The Church Fathers repeatedly speak of baptism being done normally by immersion:

"After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father; Lk. 24:49 and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names." (Against Praxeas 26, Tertullian)

…[Y]ou were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism, as Christ was carried from the Cross to the Sepulchre which is before our eyes. And each of you was asked, whether he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and you made that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and ascended again; here also hinting by a symbol at the three days burial of Christ. For as our Saviour passed three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, so you also in your first ascent out of the water, represented the first day of Christ in the earth, and by your descent, the night; for as he who is in the night, no longer sees, but he who is in the day, remains in the light, so in the descent, as in the night, you saw nothing, but in ascending again you were as in the day. And at the self-same moment you were both dying and being born; and that Water of salvation was at once your grave and your mother. (Catechetical Lecture 20: On the Mysteries 2.4, St. Basil of Caesarea )

This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit. For baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. (1 Pet. 3:21) (On the Holy Spirit 15.35, St. Jerome)

In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. As it is easy for us to dip and to lift our heads again, so it is easy for God to bury the old man, and to show forth the new. And this is done thrice, that you may learn that the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost fulfills all this. (Homily 25 on the Gospel of John, St. John Chrysostom)

For the Apostle Paul says, ‘Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should also walk in newness of life. For is we were planted together in the likeness of Hid death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.’ And the teacher of the Gentiles stated this idea in other and fuller language, when he wished to recommend the sacrament of baptism. So that it appears from the spirit of his doctrine, that that day and that time has been chosen for baptizing the sons of men, and for making them the sons of God, in which, by a likeness and by the mode of administering the sacrament, those things which are performed upon the members may correspond to those which have been performed upon the Head; for while, in accordance with the rule of baptism, death intervenes by the dying unto sin, and while the trine immersion is an imitation of the three days’ burial, the rising again out the water is an image of Christ rising from the grave. (Letter 16.4, Pope St. Leo I)

Much more than this too.

He believed that the See of Peter is shared by all bishops, even if the Church of Rome plays a special role of unity and of being the source of the episcopacy and of the chair due to the Bishop of Rome working as Peter's successor (or, rather, due to Peter being Rome's patron saint and last place of teaching).

He says the Church of Rome receives the primacy from Peter and not by synodal decree. This has nothing to do with infallibility, even though other saints speak of it.

You're going to bring him up of all people? He does not even say the Spirit hypostatically comes from the Son, but that He is consubstantial to the Father and the Son.
I do not need to add that him supposedly calling them "his sources", plural, would be very wrong since there is only one spiration.

Orthodox don't deny divine simplicity, OP is nitpicking. To quote St Gregory Palamas:

This doesn't address the philosophical reasonment of Transubstantiation.

Orthodox believe that Mary was truly full of grace, even ordained to a ministry by God from her conception, to be pure of sin so that she could bear Him for nine months without being destroyed. This does not mean the Immaculate Conception.

Everybody agrees today that he was talking about Gehenna being purgatorial. He was a purgatorial universalist.

No clue what you're trying to say here. How is this relevant to you delaying the baptism in the Holy Spirit? Did not the apostles themselves rush to administer it to those who were only baptized in the name of the Lord?

In what council was Transubstantiation anathematized as a heresy?

See: orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/orth_cath_response.aspx

And so the Apostle have given a pattern, saying that a bishop 'must be blameless', and in another place: 'A bishop must be without offence, as a steward of God, not proud, not soon angry, not given to wine, not a striker, not greedy of filthy lucre.' For how can the compassion of a dispenser of alms and the avarice of a covetous man agree together? I have set down these things which I have been told are to be avoided, but the apostle is the master of virtues, and he teaches that gainsayers are to be convicted with patience, who lays down that one should be the husband of a single wife, not in order to exclude him from the right of marriage (for this is beyond the force of the precept), but that by conjugal chastity he may preserve the grace of his baptismal washing; nor again that he may be induced by the Apostle's authority to beget children in the priesthood; for he speaks of having children, not of begetting them, or marrying again. [p.465, Chapters 61 & 62, Letter 63, St Ambrose, Second Series,Vol.10]

Yes, scholasticism started in the west. And?

They are guided by the Holy Spirit and lay down matters of faith necessary for salvation. Roman Catholics make dogmas the doctrines defined within scholasticism, whereas Orthodox dogmas are based on salvation.

Jesus the orthodox denial in this thread.

Says the one that allows divorce twice and contraception in some cases.
Way to go orthodoxy.

98% (actual figure) of "Catholics" disagree with the Church's official teaching on contraception and ignore it, so…

Transsubstantiation

You are absolutely right that there is no doctrine of transsubstantiation in the writings of the Fathers. Instead of the word μετουσίωσις (transsubstantiatio) the Greek Fathers have used the word μεταβολή (mutatio). It should be noted, however, that it seems there is nothing in the teaching of the Fathers that contradicts the doctrine of the transsubstantiation. Also, the word "transsubstiation" has been approved by the great Orthodox council of 1691 in Constantinople.

The teaching about the transsubstantiation is not among the things revealed to us. Since the transsubstantiation does not contradict the Orthodox doctrines, it is acceptable for an Orthodox person to believe privately in it. However, when a Church proclaims this personal opinion as a doctrine, this becomes a heresy. And a heresy not without fatal consequences. In the Eucharist the Catholic Church doesn't give the blood of Christ to the lay-persons exactly because the Catholic theologians think they know the way the bread and the wine become the actual Body and Blood of Christ. They will say something like "where the Body is, the Blood is also there".

Original sin

Things are somewhat convoluted here. The main difference between Orthodox and Catholic is not whether we will talk about the ancestral sin (Orthodox) or about the original sin (Catholic). There are many entangled differences here that are difficult to talk about but in my opinion the main and huge difference is in the notion of the sin. What is sin?

The Catholic theology sees the sin as sort of a criminal activity that deserves rightful penalty by God. The Orthodox theology sees the sin as a sort of illness that makes us unable to receive the grace of God. The suffering of the sinners is caused by their sinful state and not because God desires that the sinners will suffer for their sins.

The Orthodox do not deny that the state of the deceased can be changed to good by the prayers and the alms given by the living, or by the prayers of the Saints. What we deny is that the soul can compensate for her sins by a specific amount of suffering. We deny this because this, too, leads to the concept of an evil God who wants to see the sinner suffered "enough".

Now, this is a sentence that both Orthodox and Catholic can agree is true. But how incredibly differently we understand the meaning of this sentence!

Since the Catholic theologians link sin with guilt, they think that guilt passes from Adam to his descendants. God refutes this teaching outright: "the fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death". (Deut. 24:18) Moreover, according to the Catholics the free will is destroyed by the original sin so we are leaved with the picture of an evil God who punishes people who are totally unable to refrain from sin. (Only the Baptism restores the free will according to the Catholicism.)

For the Orthodox, the ancestral sin means that our body is mortal and we have within us predisposition toward sin. The guilt, however, is because of our own sins and not because of the ancestral sin. Moreover, the free will is not destroyed by the ancestral sin.

Since the Catholics link sin with guilt and they don't want to see any guilt in the Mother of God, the Catholic doctrine about the immaculate conception becomes a natural and very logical consequence. Sadly, the Catholics don't understand the Orthodox opposition of this doctrine so they usually try to defend it using citations that the Orthodox people will accept full-heartedly.

If the Catholics say that the Mother of God was never guilty of anything, we, the Orthodox will agree. The Mother of God was never guilty of anything because she never sinned. The Catholics think that the doctrine about the immaculate conception of Mary honours her. But in fact, this doctrine does the opposite. For us, the Mother of God inherited the predisposition for sin from her parents and the fact that she never sinned is her own merit and not something caused by a miraculous act by God. During her childhood, while in the Holy of Holies, she cleansed herself from any sinful predisposition through hesychastic practice. She is the only one who has been able to reach deification (theosis) as a child and because she has never sinned, she is the only one who has achieved this without the sacraments of baptism and confession.

Absolute simplicity

The essence of God is simple, we agree on this.

But what about our knowledge about the essence of God? If we could reach full knowledge about the essence of God, this would mean that we could encompass the infinite God. Therefore, Aquinas and the Catholic theologians assume that we can have only partial knowledge about the essence of God. They don't realise that "partial knowledge" about something means that this something has parts and we know that the essence of God has no parts. The only remaining option is that the essence of God is totally incomprehensible and this is what the Orthodox affirm.

But even if the essence of God is incomprehensible, God is not incomprehensible because He becomes known to us in His uncreated presentations/actions/energies. Different people can comprehend these to different degrees, so it naturally follows that the presentations of God are not simple, they have "parts" and they are perceived as changing.

The authority of the Pope

The first see of Peter was not Rome but Antioch. And Peter had no authority over the Apostles, he had primacy among them. When the teaching of Pope Leo was Orthodox, the Fathers of the Ecumenical councils glorified him with exclamations "This is the voice of Peter! Peter has spoken through Leo!". But when Pope Honorius became a heretic, they anathematized the heretics "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things". This anathema against a Pope has been the main argument against the Papal infallibility during the First Vatican council.

Politics

There is one unpleasant thing in the Orthodox Church. I don't like to write about this but I feel I have to. We have to be honest with our future converts. The thing is that in the Orthodox Church you will find two wrestling "parties". (Here I am using the word "parties" informally, they are not formally organized.)

First, in the Orthodox Church you will find over-zealous people who will try to impose their personal opinion over everyone as The True Orthodoxy. Everyone who does not think as them, is apostate. Here is an example: the Russian Patriarch Kirill was accused of heresy because few days ago he met with the "ecumenist", the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew. Be prepared about these people and don't think their opinions are the opinions of the Church!

The Second, is the party of the ecumenists, the arch-enemies of zealots. The ecumenists (usually) are learned people. They don't care about converts, their dream is to unite the Orthodox Church with other "churches". So they participate in official talks and there they talk as politicians. Always trying to reach compromises, they often maintain untraditional and strange interpretation of the Fathers. They want to demonstrate that there aren't many differences between the Orthodox Church and, say, the Catholics or Anglicans. If you read , you will see there a good example of an opinion written by a sympathiser of the second "party".

Ok
Why do if it's ok if someone holds this opinion privately and it doesn't contradict any orthodox doctrine?

That's the same if I said I was a Muslim and didn't believe in Muhammad. I couldn't call myself a Muslim.
Therefore those people aren't catholic.
And since when is the peoples opinion that say what's the doctrine of the church?
While the doctrine of the orthodox Church allows divorce independently if their people support it or not.

The Orthodox doctrine is only about things necessary for our salvation. If you accept the Orthodox doctrine and live accordingly, you have what you need. You are free, if you want, to believe also in the transsubstantiation. Since transsubstantiation does not contradict the Orthodox doctrine, this is not a sin.

But at the same time, transsubstantiation is not something we know for sure. It is not something revealed to us by God. Therefore, we don't know that this is a true teaching. The Church will never proclaim something uncertain as certain. A good teacher is no ashamed to say "I don't know" when he doesn't know.

They don't want us to have sex with animals and they punish us for having sex with animals, yes because they want us to procreate and expand. They want us to multiply and then leave to settle somewhere else under the threat of persecution. They use us as tools to take over other places, because they follow us and take what we have settled. This is why they won't let is have sex with animals and this is why they want us to work for our own, so they can come and take it away from us. They take for cheap what we were tricked into working for.

Is there some kind of Orthodox version of the catechism of the Catholic Church that lays out all the doctrines necessary for salvation according to Orthodoxy?

The doctrines are like signpost telling you "do not go there for in the day that you go there you shall surely die". A writing on paper with all necessary doctrines is just as impossible, as a writing describing all human diseases.

When you connect with Christ by becoming a member of His body, you draw from His life, His life becomes your life and your soul awakens. Your soul begins sensing. The more closely you attach yourself to Christ, the sharper your spiritual vision becomes. You, yourself, become a writing from Christ, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the writing but of the Spirit. For the writing kills, but the Spirit gives life.

It would be incredibly helpful if you start to heal your ignorance instead of trying to teach things you don't know to others.
You call everything heresy, not caring if it's doctrinal or not.
My advice, be able to discern the nature of these differences because they are not the same things.
Disagrement about dogma = heresy
Disagrement about other stuff = different practice or opinion

ecclesiology. biggest difference

doctrinal

started as linguistic confusion but became doctrinal (see St.Maximus the confessor)

meme

just a different philosopical understanding. not a reason of division whatsoever. Unfortunately there are people like you who try to find heresies everywhere when they see minor differences.

just a different understanding, not heresy.

you never had a council to condemn this.

theological difference

can be solved.

who cares?

who cares II?

not doctrinal, not heretical. just a difference in canon law, can be changed.

means nothing

what the hell does this even mean?

First you accuse the OP of ignorance only because OP has confidence in teachers that you don't like. Fine. But then you make a statement like this one:

Wow! Really?

The Catholics delay the Confirmation because they think they know everything about the purpose of this sacrament. As usually, they think they know everything. The Holy Spirit is our guarantee, our down payment of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it. (Ephesians 1:14) Nobody should stay before our Lord without this guarantee.

Why in the heck do we want to join you we want you to join us? The schism was a mutual thing the Bishop of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other at the same time. Until Christ himself returns the schism will not end. I pray for you brothers and I hope you pray for us that we may find our way into heaven with our Lord.

Because if you join us you will be one with Christians having the same faith as always and in a Church that has proven again and again that she can survive the gates of hell, pure as always and rich of martyrs. And the funny thing is that the Catholic church has never denied this claim of ours. If, on the other hand, you stay with the heretical pseudo-popes, you are already one with Catholics, pseudo-Orthodox, Monophysites, Nestorians and more in the future.

Because the Bible says that all the gods of the Gentiles are devils, Psalm 95(96):5
And the pope says (in an official video at thepopevideo.org) that the gentiles are "meeting God in different ways".

Because the Church teaches that she is bearer of the truth.
And the pope says that with so many different religions "there is only one certainty we have for all: we are children of God".

Major Ortho heresies

We are not interested in rejoining Rome. That ship has already sailed.

Dont cry

Don't worry Ortho bros. In two or three generations we'll reunify.

once all the cultural Catholics are dead/moved on/no longer give a damn about keeping up appearances, the meager few of us left who value our tradition will be so skeptical of anything coming out of Rome we will probably just take your word that our guys were in the wrong
I'm just about there already

source of screencap?

I had never heard about this. Can you explain what their position is?