The real presence in the Eucharist and the perpetual virginity of Mary are two examples that I disagree with
Considering these doctrines are central not only to the Eastern Orthodox Church but also to the Oriental Orthodox Church (I collectively regard the EO and OO churches as being optimal), and the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Roman Catholic Church, and Lutheranism, and High Church Anglicanism, this really doesn’t make much sense, since one would expect that if the Orthodox were in error on either point, one of the other churches I have enumerated would have objected.
Beyond that, I would note that we know that the doctrine of the real presence predates St. Ignatius because the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, that is to say, the Alexandrian Rite divine liturgy, which has the oldest attestation, in the form of the Strasbourg Papyrus, of any liturgy aside from the liturgical instructions in the Didache, which fall short of being a complete liturgy, makes it extremely clear, moreso than the ancient liturgy of Antioch as attested to by the Anaphora of the Apostles still used by the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and also found in St. Hippolytus, and used (incompetently, I would note) as the basis for Eucharistic Prayer 2 in the Novus Ordo Missae and Eucharistic Prayer B in the 1979 BCP, and in the services of several other denominations who published service books since 1969. And what is more, Antioch and Alexandria were known for their rival catechetical schools with different approaches to hermeneutics. Thus it is extremely unlikely that the doctrine of the Real Presence would be adopted by Alexandria just based on a statement by St. Ignatius of Antioch, who has become an extremely revered saint, but the process by which he was glorified took a while even then.
What is more, the Didache makes clear the doctrine of the real presence, and so to does scripture; contrary to what Adventists assert there is nothing in scripture which is contrary to the doctrine of the real presence; the most one could possibly get away from it would be to say that our Lord is really spiritually present but not really physically present in the Eucharist, so that spiritually, the bread and wine became his body and blood, and I had thought this was the Calvinist view although recently i have realized this might not be the case, which would force me to disclaim my previous view that Calvinism, while in error, was not directly contradicted by scripture, and that rather the reasons for not adhering to it were due to the rejection of several of its central doctrines by the early church.
The thing is, we have no record of anyone in antiquity arguing that our Lord was only spiritually present in the Eucharist. Rather, early Eucharistic heresies tended to be more bizarre, for example, the Collyridians offered the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Blessed Virgin Mary who they worshipped, and they may have believed, like the modern day Palmarian cult, that she was present in the Eucharist. Then there were the hydroparastae, who believed in having the Eucharist with water only, which makes no sense, so naturally the Mormons decided to adopt that doctrine, since it seems to be a fundamental principle that nothing in Mormonism can be logical or rational.
