Hey guys. Wanting some info dumps on all the heresy's you can give a newbie the sit rep about. I've got a few of them marked down that i'll be posting. Also if you can, it'd would be nice if they're Orthodox centered. I noticed especially in Protestant america. You tend to get a wide variety of views. And there usually tends to be loads of Loaded heresies within Certain faiths.
List of Known Heresies i've got Written down just to go over. And incase i'm in discussion with someone, to make sure i'm not falling into a trap.
- Docetists say Jesus was not incarnated in the flesh.
- Arians say Jesus was not God.
- Macedonians say the Holy Spirit, who is the presence of Jesus after His resurrection just as Jesus is the presence of the Father, is not God.
- Nestorians say that Jesus the God and Jesus the man are distinct persons. A variant of this is Iconoclasm.
- Monophysites say that after the union, Jesus only has one nature which is either human-divine or purely divine. A variant of this is Monothelitism.
- Modalists say that Jesus is the Father.
- Filioquists say that Jesus is the cause of the Holy Spirit's being.
- Mormons say that Jesus is not consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and is not the creator of the world (and the Father has a body and is not the creator of the world also).
ah yes, those darn filioquist heretics…let's see…the catholic church?! you sneaky little orthodox, at it again!
James Ross
Begone, schismatic.
Joseph Davis
Stop screeching
Gabriel Ortiz
- Aspergerists are sectarian eastern europeans, they are mad about filioque
Tyler Walker
AdHominemists are just plain fools who have no idea how to avoid baits
Anthony Wright
Those who reject the filioque and say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone are traditionally called Monopatrists.
You literally just copy-pasted what I said in another thread. Obviously an asterisk is needed for all of them but Docetism and Macedonianism (or Pneumatomachoi) because there still exist sects that adhere to them, with obviously Catholics adhering to Filioquism. These are only "hard" heresies as well, those that are directly about making a grave error about Jesus Christ. There are countless doctrines that, while not directly about Jesus's divinity or humanity, are considered good enough reasons to excommunicate and anathematize and as such are called "heresies" as well. Most notably Monergism among Protestants and Papism, Purgatory, etc. among Catholics.
This thread will not turn out well, since it expects everyone participating to have an Eastern Orthodox perspective. But you knew this and only wanted to cause debate and dispute. Shame on you.
Jonathan Scott
lol. You have no idea what Filioque is. Proccedit does not mean "originate" it means "is passed". Catholics believe Holy Spirit originates from the Father, can be passed through the Son. There are scripture references to this "passing". So get lost. I you want to debate why the Son cannot pass the Holy Spirit that comes from Father, we can discuss that.( But I think Orthodox theology admits this..am I wrong?)
Matthew Cooper
Your thread is bad and you should feel bad. If you criticize something, you should have a basic grip on it. If you claim Filioque means Jesus is the cause of the Holy Spirit's being youre ither being dishonest (shame to you) or you do not know what you're talking about…then it is just cringe. Sage.
Isaac Brown
You could actually correct him instead of just scream "REEEE GET LOST, REEEE". Also, how Catholicism interprets it is debated at least. I dont really care about this though, my primary concerns are Papacy and Scholasticism. But the point is, that my post was referring to you shouting instead of giving any kind of civilized response
only now I noticed the typo. I abhor phoneposting
Ayden Hill
Anyways, good luck with yet another shit throwing thread at eachother, I'll [-] this and go back to /Orthodox/ General
Hunter Brown
You don't know your own theology? Did you read Laetentur Caeli?
the position by most Orthodox theologians (at least the mainstream ones) is that the filioque dispute is over authority not theology. There are many Catholics and Orthodox who say the addition or removal of the filioque is a point of acceptable theological disagreement, however the Catholic position is that an ecumenical council (and later on in history, a pontiff) can add to the creed, whereas the Orthodox position is that nobody can add to the creed.
Personally I side with the Catholic position because an ecumenical council gave us the creed, an ecumenical council can add to the creed. However I don't think it should be a huge problem, and there's 13 million eastern Catholics who agree
Matthew Taylor
Latin's butthurt proceeds from their cockiness AND their inability to read patrisics
Jackson Baker
white fish hook on a black background dot jpg
Owen Walker
Stop making these threads attacking Nestorius and his teachings, when you know nothing about them!
Nestorius taught that Christ is two natures, God and man. He never taught that Christ is two persons. He was a dyophysite and his faith was Chalcedonian. He accepted the accuracy of the term Theotokos.
Nathan Ramirez
...
Nathaniel Johnson
Unless this was a particularly good trolling attempt
Gnosticism is a fairly common one that should be explained. Basically the Zoroastrian idea that "material is evil and spirit is good," can sometimes tie into Docetism.
Alexander Roberts
This is a pet peeve of mine that I'm going to have to go full "ACKCHUALLY" on. Zoroastrianism is indeed dualistic, but its dualism is moral in that there are two eternal entities, Ahura Mazda (good) and Angra Mainyu (evil) who both have positive existence (as opposed to Christianity which sees evil as negative, solely as privation). Manichaeism, which was largely a Persian derivation of gnosticism, indeed shares with its forefather spirit-matter duality.
Leo Bell
Op here, back again checking to see if, my thread had some useful info. And……welp. Was hoping someone would expand upon the list i posted/Repaired possible errors, i made from an orthodox position. And to all the angry Catholics. I don't know why, you're so mad. I sad i was looking for a heresy list from an, Orthodox position. How am i supposed to know what's a heresy, and what's in its essence if i'm just told *LoL Dumb American, Orthodox posters*. Wow real helpful……
If you are looking for a definition, then here is one: a heresy is a change in the faith of the Apostles.
The Christian faith is mysterious. For example there is one God and yet, the Father is God and the Son is God, the Father is not the Son but there is only one God. Or the Christ is a human and the Christ is God. Isn't this a contradiction? Yes, this is above what our mind can explain. Naturally, many people tried to explain these apparent contradictions and created heresies. The reaction of the Church was to point out the errors of the heretics. The dogmatic definitions of the Councils do not solve the mystery of our faith, they explain things that can be explained but the mystery is still there.
No exhaustive list of all heresies is possible. Your list is correct even if with somewhat simplified definitions
This is a complete lie. Catholic dogma still teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son "as if from one principle" and therefore are heretics. Orthodoxy affirms the Son's eternal relationship with the Spirit but the Son does in no way generate the Spirit. This is taught by Lyons and Florence.
Elijah Lopez
that's heresy
Logan Reed
This is a complete lie. Catholics teach catma, orthodogs teach dogma.
Josiah Walker
I believe 'dual procession' is a valid theologoumena in Orthodoxy, however it is certainly not dogms
Carter Green
The Father alone is the sole Cause in the Trinity, the Fathers of the Church teach it.
Oliver Sanders
The Trinity is Triune, there is no divine act within a singular Person of the Trinity, all participate.
Jordan Morales
By that logic, the Spirit begets the Son.
Thomas Perry
The Word existed since the Beginning as did the Holy Spirit, it's on you to prove that the Trinity acts singularly in person-hood.
Jacob White
Not going to bother with your Roman Catholic shilling, you've already been exposed. Have a nice day
Grayson Clark
Not an argument.
Wyatt Diaz
The Trinity does not act singularly. The acts of the Father are also acts of the Son and acts of the Spirit. But it's on you to respond properly to The begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are not "acts" (=energies in Greek).
It seems that in the recent times the catholic church does make some efforts to make a catholic theology which is more in accordance with the Orthodox theology. The bad decisions of the past are neglected, Lyons is not mentioned. There are even catholic bishops who will say that the councils of Lyons and Florence are not Ecumenical but only local councils and as such not infallible.
All this doesn't mean the catholic church is moving towards Orthodoxy. It only means that the catholicism is a reed shaken by the wind. When talking with Orthodox the recent popes say the Orthodox are correct. When talking with heretics the popes say the heretics are correct. When talking with traditional catholics who say the heretics are heretics the popes say yes you too are correct. Everyone is correct, lets make love!
Lucas Walker
Then please do explain why Eastern Rite catholics still use the filio version in Greek/Slavic?
David Clark
Nice, now we may divorce and re-marry 3 times and use contraception with Fr. Vladimir's permission. What a light yoke!
Can we masturbate too?
Thank you.
I already did. If he cannot deny the Triune God acts separately, then he must accept that "Father and the Son" is equal to "Father through the Son".
Jacob Richardson
If he denies the Triune God acts separately*
James Jones
Nice, how about listening to the words of Christ: "It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Notice the words in boldface. The Orthodox permit divorce when the spouse has committed adultery and even then not without attempts for reconciliation. What is the point in proclaiming higher standards than what Christ said and what the Apostles practiced when the reality is so far from the theory.
No, you have not. The acts of God are property of the nature so they are common to the three divine Persons. The begetting of the Son, however, is not a property of the divine nature, but a personal property of the person of the Father.
As for the procession of the Holy Spirit, the word "procession" is used to denote two different processions of the Holy Spirit. When we say about someone that he has the Holy Spirit in him we don't mean that he has the person (the hypostasis) of the Holy Spirit. The person/hypostasis of the Holy Spirit does not live in us, in fact the Saints teach us that we don't know the whereabouts of the persons of the Trinity and we are not going to know this even in the afterlife. Thats why the Bible often uses expressions like "he has of the Holy Spirit" instead of "he has the Holy Spirit" in this way making clear that we have not the person of the Holy Spirit but rather his manifestation/activity/energy. With respect to this procession of the Holy Spirit we can say that He proceeds from the Son (or from the Father throught the Son, or from the Father and the Son) and rests in us. It is ok to use the filioque with respect to this procession.
The second type of procession concerns not the manifestation of the Holy Spirit but his person; the cause of the person of the Holy Spirit. With respect to this procession the Holy Spirit (the person) proceeds from the Father without separation and rests in the Son. With respect to this procession the "filioque" is absurd because this procession doesn't start from the Son but rather ends in the Son.
With respect to the second procession (the cause of the person of the Holy Spirit) we don't use either of these two expressions. The first one is absolutely wrong, and the expression "the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father through the Son" is a rare abbreviation of "the Holy spirit is proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son".
Dylan Gonzalez
porneia refers to a union that was illicit from the start, not illicit due to fornication
if Christ and His Church is mirrored in the sacrament of Marriage, do you also say that Christ would leave His Church due to "fornication"? Not that His Church would ever be defiled, anyway.
The Orthodox are wrong.
that's completely ridiculous, the Church is conforming to the highest standard, not making up one
It does not end in the Son, it goes from The Father, through The Son.
If I have to be frank, I find the Orthodox's teaching on marriage more disqualifying than even the filioque controversy.
Justin Anderson
moreover, if "porneia" refers to fornication in lieu of an illicit union, does this mean marriages of incest and other abominations (hello gay marriage!) are ok?
the comparison to Christ and the Church makes even more sense if porneia is speaking of licit and illicit too, Christ is only loyal to His licit Church.
Nolan Nguyen
If we are "wrong" because we follow the words of Jesus, then so be it. See how Chrysostom interprets this Biblical place (Matthew 5:32): "In another way also He has lightened the enactment: forasmuch as even for him He leaves one manner of dismissal, when He says, "Except for the cause of fornication;" since the matter had else come round again to the same issue. For if He had commanded to keep her in the house, though defiling herself with many, He would have made the matter end again in adultery." Nowhere you will find a patristic exegesis of this place which interprets differently the words "except on the ground of sexual immorality".
I can give you quotations from our common Saints supporting what I wrote. Can you do the same about what you wrote (with respect to the second type of procession, namely the origin, or the cause of the person of the Holy Spirit)?
To say that the person of the Holy Spirit moves from the Father and passes through the Son is a blasphemy. The Persons of the Holy Trinity do not "move".
On the other hand, when the Holy Spirit manifests himself in us, he has come to us through the Son because the Son is the mediator between God and man and the Son is the one who destroyed the barrier between God and man. And because the Father is the one source of all divinity, we also say that the Holy Spirit has come to us from the Father. This is the explanation of the expression "the Holy Spirit has come to us from the Father through the Son". And because the divinity of the Son is identical with the divinity of the Father, the expression "the Holy Spirit has come to us from the Father and the Son" is also correct. Any divine activity of the Holy Spirit in us is also activity of the Father and of the Son.
John Robinson
You don't. I had no idea the Orthodox were KJV-Onlyists.
St. Augustine
St. Jerome
As for St. John C, I do not believe he endorses divorce and re-marriage.
Well, we can both ask the Son on His Day, this is a question that will definitely be settled.
Ian Lee
just curious but is it a sin to watch korean dance vids? if my intentions are pure?
Sebastian Campbell
You wrote When I read this I thought you wanted to say that the word porneia in Matthew 5:32 was used in its narrow meaning "fornication" and not "adultery". In order to show that this is not so, I gave a quote from Chrysostom.
Your quote from Augustine also proves that the word porneia in this place means adultery. According to your quote a man who marries another wife after the repudiation of his former adulterous wife has "the taint of this sin" (of adultery) and he does something "certainly less serious than that of a men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives".
According to the Roman civil law, a man was permitted to dismiss adulterous wife, a wife, however, was not permitted to leave adulterous man. Although there were some Fathers who said we must not treat differently adultery according to the sexes, as a whole the Church followed for some time this custom inherited from the Romans. Notice that Jerome blames a wife dismissing her adulterous husband but not a husband dismissing his adulterous wife.
Now, it is certainly possible to find very different opinions among the Fathers with respect to the divorce and the remarriage. Some of them (as Augustine) are less permissive, others are more permissive. When deciding about divorce and remarriages the Orthodox are still guided by all these opinions – all of them are applicable in due situation and all of them have divine wisdom. But when you say "remarriages are not permitted, end of story" you replace the wisdom of the Fathers by strict rules, the spirit by the letter.
Also notice that there are cases when divorce is not only permitted but even recommended. When a man has adulterous wife who does not want to change but goes with one man after another, he is advised to dismiss her according to the words "he that keeps an adulteress, is foolish and wicked". (Proverbs 18:22, these words are missing in the present Hebrew text, they however are present in all ancient translations: Septuagint, Vulgate, Peshitta.)
Isaiah Rodriguez
It depends. Watch the result of an act, not the intentions.
How did you do this?
Jack Collins
haha nevermind. however, does the Orthodox Church only allow men to divorce and re-marry? if they put weight on the idea that only women are culpable of adultery, I'm unsure how that would even be remotely just or logical (not to imply that divorce is just at all)
Zachary Scott
eh, 8ch is acting up
"He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
Additionally, there is also the fact that it is not simply "good advice", but a prophecy of the Covenant being passed off from Jew to Gentile (or, spiritual Jews/Israel) through Christ. I suppose some, from the hardness of their hearts, wish to be able to divorce and re-marry, much like the Jews?
“Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? 6*So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
It does not, unless you mean to imply that Augustine chose to contradict Jesus Christ for no reason here.
Care to present St. Jerome saying that a re-married man is not guilty of adultery?
You need to separate "divorce" from "estrangement". John C endorses putting away, and "divorcing" an adulterous women, but does he support re-marriage?
The Church has never had unified practice about the divorces and remarriages. It seems the following rules have been followed (but not always!) in the Roman Empire:
st. Emperor Constantine the Great: divorce permitted when 1) there is an adultery; 2) the spouse is sentenced to death penalty; 3) the spouse is sentenced to life-long prison. st. Emperor Justinian the Great added these: 4) one of the spouses has physical limitations; 5) both spouses agree for monastic life.
It does seem that for a relatively long time the sexes were judged differently. On one hand, it was easier for a man of an adulterous wife to get a divorce than for a woman of an adulterous husband. On the other hand, divorce and permission for remarriage was given to women who were terrorized (maybe beaten) by their husbands while it was impossible for a man whose wife terrorizes him to get a divorce. Remarriage is forbidden for the adulterous spouse, regardless of the sex.
Ironic Catholics are complaining about Orthodox teaching on divorce when they have divorce by another name as well as Amoris Laetetia
John Cook
no they don't have divorce. and to think that marriage fraud is not rules for an annulment thats just idiotic. orthodox can divorce if your spouse is 7 years in prison. imagine that you get accused of a false crime, go to jail and then your wife can just divorce you? you guys are bonkers
Cooper Ross
this is where the Orthodox/Protestant argument gets really reaching
1. If porneia ONLY refers to fornication, then marriages of incest and other silly/sinful situations are licit, and there is a contradiction between Matthew and Luke, with Christ saying one thing that contradicts Himself on the other
2. if Porneia refers to illicit marriage, then the "contradiction" between Luke and Matthew disappears, and, quite logically, any illicit marriage is automatically null and not recognized by God, no matter what secular/pagan religions say
3. If you try to have it both ways, then you still run into the contradiction between Matthew/Luke. And again, I do not believe there is any patristic exegesis that endorses re-marriage.
Take St. Paul the Simple for example, whom is recognized by both Catholic and Orthodox:
He "divorced", "put aside" or was quite simply "estranged" from his adulterous wife, but did not re-marry, and was granted the ability to overcome demons that not even St. Anthony could overcome!
Have you also noticed that USA is a lot larger than any one Eurostate? This should aptly explain the abundance of variety.
That's Roman Catholicism; Eastern Orthodoxy says father alone. I have no idea what prautists say other than a bunch of meaningless feelgood vibes from their McChurches with colored plastic windows crudely depicting scenery or wildlife.
Mormonism wouldn't even exist if they didn't consider themselves martyrs for being kicked out by a populace that was angry with them for right reasons.
