When did the Orthodox Church fall into error?

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,458
8,967
Florida
✟321,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Someone said earlier, and I have heard it before, that the Church at some point fell into error.

For the purpose of this discussion, by Orthodox Church, I mean those Churches in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch.

For example, there is a Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Church near me that meets anyone's definition of Orthodox Church.

At what point in history did that Church fall into error?
 

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Someone said earlier, and I have heard it before, that the Church at some point fell into error.

For the purpose of this discussion, by Orthodox Church, I mean those Churches in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch.

For example, there is a Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Church near me that meets anyone's definition of Orthodox Church.

At what point in history did that Church fall into error?

The rejection of Augustine's notion of sin and guilt was a very serious error. Also the EO version of the Nicene Creed which rejects dual procession of the Holy Spirit was an error.
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The rejection of Augustine's notion of sin and guilt was a very serious error. Also the EO version of the Nicene Creed which rejects dual procession of the Holy Spirit was an error.

You mean the original Greek version which was used in Nicaea, which doesn't have "and the Son" in it?
If you argue that that version of the Creed is heretical, by necessity you argue that Nicaea was heretical.
 
Upvote 0

seeking.IAM

Episcopalian
Supporter
Feb 29, 2004
4,235
4,910
Indiana
✟931,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The rejection of Augustine's notion of sin and guilt was a very serious error. Also the EO version of the Nicene Creed which rejects dual procession of the Holy Spirit was an error.

Wrong. The Orthodox never changed the creed (i.e. went into error). They kept the version decided upon by the universal church at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. It was not until the 6th Century when some Latin churches added "and from the Son." And in 1014, Rome fully incorporated it into liturgy, 700 years after the version used by the Orthodox was decided upon by the universal church. So who is in error?
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wrong. The Orthodox never changed the creed (i.e. went into error). They kept the version decided upon by the universal church at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. It was not until the 6th Century when some Latin churches added "and from the Son." And in 1014, Rome fully incorporated it into liturgy, 700 years after the version used by the Orthodox was decided upon by the universal church. So who is in error?
Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father would be agreed upon by both Catholics and Orthodox. Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is a theological statement that could be discussed and decided upon if the two churches found a way to reconcile and meet. So whether the theology is in error is still up in the air as far as I am concerned. To say that the method of adoption in the West was illicit from the viewpoint of a conciliar only model still begs the question of what conciliar means. There were always regional councils that discussed and made decisions within their region to promote orthodoxy. This happened both in the east and west early in church history and the matter seems to have been debated by even Ante-Nicene Fathers. Usually if the regional councils made decisions that were heretical in nature there was a general ecumenical council called to subvert the heresy. This never happened, which implies that before the Great Schism the theology was not decided upon and was not thought to be heretical. I think the hard lines and the polemics started forming during and after the Schism. So if one were trying to reform the Pre-Schism church, then the obvious approach would be to adopt that attitude to the filioque.
 
Upvote 0