Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[Magyars]

I mean, it's France. The whole thing was really gay.

Why should I give someone the satisfaction of getting a rise out of me?



And how do you define righteous anger and and its expression?

I've heard many definitions of righteous anger....some better than other.
For me, it's an offense, morally or spiritually directed to God. My remedy is, to make my voice heard by calling, writing letters,and/or boycott.

 

[bmbutch]

This has greatly been on my mind / in my spirit:

Amazed (and I’m guilty myself) how many believe they know scripture and your interpretation is wrong!
You are scripturally correct and they are incorrect!
Here’s the thing:

Contradictory to Scripture is one I’ve been praying a long time about and hope to find the faith and perseverance to write about.
Way too complicated to answer that one.
Short summary:
Each of the below (and I’m sure I’m leaving outa bunch) think they know and understand scripture.
They believe they are scripturally correct.
While there are always exceptions, in general they all believe the others are misguided at best and heretics at worst:
Trinitarians
Tritheists
Catholics
Modalists
Binitarians
Unitarians
Universalists
United Chuch of Christ
Church of Christ.

If any of those, or any I left out, are the only “scripturally correct”, all the others are in big trouble.

 

[DadSmith]

I found this to be interesting.
I've read and studied about her in high school but being a Christian was left out of it. I'm glad I ran across this today.

 

[JettaKnight]

I've heard many definitions of righteous anger....some better than other.
For me, it's an offense, morally or spiritually directed to God. My remedy is, to make my voice heard by calling, writing letters,and/or boycott.

OK, I can agree with that. As Christians, we should be that shining light of truth and morality, but always doing so in the way of Christ. He never shied away of calling out sin, but always did so with a sense of compassion I cannot begin to carry out.

His righteous anger was seemingly reserved for the religious and overly pious - Those who cared more for their rules, piety, and honor than their neighbor.

 

[Quiet Observer]

This has greatly been on my mind / in my spirit:

Amazed (and I’m guilty myself) how many believe they know scripture and your interpretation is wrong!
You are scripturally correct and they are incorrect!
Here’s the thing:

Contradictory to Scripture is one I’ve been praying a long time about and hope to find the faith and perseverance to write about.
Way too complicated to answer that one.
Short summary:
Each of the below (and I’m sure I’m leaving outa bunch) think they know and understand scripture.
They believe they are scripturally correct.
While there are always exceptions, in general they all believe the others are misguided at best and heretics at worst:
Trinitarians
Tritheists
Catholics
Modalists
Binitarians
Unitarians
Universalists
United Chuch of Christ
Church of Christ.

If any of those, or any I left out, are the only “scripturally correct”, all the others are in big trouble.

Much of the problem is not that we disagree, but that some individual members of these groups do not respect other groups, as children of God. There is too much, "we don't like them, because they do not like us." In many cases we have never met any of them, or just a very few.

 

[historian]

OK, I can agree with that. As Christians, we should be that shining light of truth and morality, but always doing so in the way of Christ. He never shied away of calling out sin, but always did so with a sense of compassion I cannot begin to carry out.

His righteous anger was seemingly reserved for the religious and overly pious - Those who cared more for their rules, piety, and honor than their neighbor.

Our readings for this Sunday were all about righteous anger:

Jeremiah 7:1-11
Romans 9:30-10:4
Luke 19:41-48

 

[foszoe]

Does the term righteous anger appear in the bible?

Is a human being capable of righteous anger?

Perhaps, but I would want to be very careful in claiming righteousness for myself. It's not righteous anger, but the anger of the righteous.

How can a human being be certain that the anger being experienced is the anger of the righteous?

It is very easy to be self deluded into thinking my actions are righteous, including my anger.

I would think the anger of the righteous would also require righteous judgment. The word underlying righteous also underlies justified/justification. When I am reading most English versions of the Bible, English translations of the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church fathers, especially those done by Protestants and Catholics, I almost always subconciously read it as righteous(ness) when I see the word justified(ication). The legal/transactional model underlying western theology is often reinforced by that word choice.

The easiest way to heaven is Judge not that ye be not Judged. Most people just seemly do not want to claim that promise for themselves. IF that is the case, then read Corinthians. We are to judge amongst ourselves, not those outside the fold, as Jetta alluded to, for those outside the fold will be judged by God.

So when someone "persecutes" us, ridicules us, makes fun of us what are we to do? Well according to Romans we are to Bless those who persecute us, Bless and do not curse.

Also as Jetta noted, our reaction should be love and meekness. These virtues are the opposite of the vice of anger. If our anger is not expressed with love and meekness, we are acting against the true, authentic human nature as created by God.

So, how can we even hope that we have the anger of the righteous?

The rational power, intellect, should lead the two irrational or passionate parts of us. The irascible or excitable part of us which is easily provoked, and the concupiscible or appetitive part of us where our desires live.

If we are certain our desire is for God alone and we are slow to anger, not easily provoked and our intellect or eye of the soul has been illumined by the light of Christ, then perhaps we can share in the anger of the righteous.

In the words of St Evagrios, "The rational soul works according to nature when its concupiscible part desires virtue, the irascible does battle for it, and the rational devotes itself to contemplation"

When this harmony is lost, we fall victim to the passions.

Again in the words of St Evagrios, "...anger is like that of the serpent. When the irascible power wins, the soul becomes 'bestial'; when desire wins, the soul becomes like a 'horse' or a 'mule'"

Or as Elder Thaddeos wrote, "Our thoughts determine our Lives"

Speaking only for myself, I am not capable of the anger of the righteous. I do pray that when the time comes I am placed on the right hand with the sheep.

 

[foszoe]

This has greatly been on my mind / in my spirit:

Amazed (and I’m guilty myself) how many believe they know scripture and your interpretation is wrong!
You are scripturally correct and they are incorrect!
Here’s the thing:

Contradictory to Scripture is one I’ve been praying a long time about and hope to find the faith and perseverance to write about.
Way too complicated to answer that one.
Short summary:
Each of the below (and I’m sure I’m leaving outa bunch) think they know and understand scripture.
They believe they are scripturally correct.
While there are always exceptions, in general they all believe the others are misguided at best and heretics at worst:
Trinitarians
Tritheists
Catholics
Modalists
Binitarians
Unitarians
Universalists
United Chuch of Christ
Church of Christ.

If any of those, or any I left out, are the only “scripturally correct”, all the others are in big trouble.

When it comes to scripture, mystery and humility should be preferred to scholasticism and pride.
Contradictory to Scripture for some actually means contradictory to my interpretation or understanding of Scripture.



As an example, and using a big brush here, consider the Reformation. Due to abuses within the Catholic Church, the Protestant reformation occurs. The terminology used is all pretty much the same, but there develops a strong anti Catholic sentiment among Protestants. Today, I still meet Christians who will say that Catholics are not Christians. For many Protestants, if something "sounds" Catholic, it is almost immediately objected and the Bible is brought into the fray.

Now for my example. Catholics proclaim the Virgin Mary had no other children. Protestants read their English versions of the Bible and see Jesus had Brothers so Catholics are wrong, their teaching "contradicts" the bible. Now if someone comes along and says the underlying Greek word could also mean cousins or even that these Brothers were Children of Joseph from a previous marriage, that view is rejected because it's "Catholic".

There is an opportunity to be charitable in our interpretation while still holding our own opinions, but that is not usually the way that is chosen.

I have also encountered that with people who prefer one English version over others, some even consider one verison inspired. For all the other world's languages, is there also only one inspired version? We don't even have the original Greek. There is no one definitive text of the Bible. All we have are copies of copies of manuscripts.

As far as the Greek goes, English versions will reveal translator bias in their word choice. Can we then say there is s contradiction with Scripture or a contradiction in translation? Language often has a nuanced meaning, but in translating, this is often lost. The same word can be translated one way when it has a positive connotation and another when it has a negative connotation. The NIV does this with the word translated "tradition" for example.

Read the varied translations of 1 Peter 3:21. I was asked about that verse from someone who prefers the KJV and used the verse as evidence that Baptism is a symbolic act, and outward expression of an inward experience is how she put it. She interpreted "filth of the flesh" as "sin" based on how her tradition interprets the writing of St Paul and asked me based on her reading what I thought. I simply said what if it means washing off dirt? When she checked other translations, some of them agreed with that.

The point is it's complicated

Now, in the computer age, armchair Greek has risen in popularity. It's easy now to look up what a Greek word "means". The problem is all nuance is often lost. A Lexicon, especially an introductory one, does not tell us how many different shades of meaning a word has. It simply lists a few glosses from which we can choose when we are looking at the Greek. The problem is, as human beings, we are prone to select the gloss which most favors our interpretation.

The question is much more complicated than does it contradict scripture?

We have a Bible not a Koran and we must not read the Bible as a Koran.

I would encourage you to take a apophatic approach to theology and the Bible vs a cataphatic approach. It will lead to less "contradiction".

 

[JettaKnight]

Our readings for this Sunday were all about righteous anger:

Jeremiah 7:1-11
Romans 9:30-10:4
Luke 19:41-48

Note that each one of those passages are squarely aimed at His people, not the worldly sinners.

 

[JettaKnight]

When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

I'm torn - on one hand I fully believe that following a Christian morality and ethics brings prosperity and grace, but on the other hand, to force it seems counter to the Gospel - or maybe just how we force it.

When we force the world to conform to Christian moral by laws, economic coercion, or even threats, what have we achieved in actually bringing about the Kingdom?

I, as a Christian, do follow this because I have to, but because I want to. I want to live as Christ out of love and thankfulness for the grace and mercy He gives me and the sacrifice he made at the cross.

If I force someone to follow a Christian ethic, they don't do it for the same reason and are just as condemned. There's nothing you can do to be righteous.


It's a fine line between protecting your freedom, you church, and your families from a sinful world and going too far to be imposing a religious society that has the mere veneer of righteousness, yet underneath is rotten.



Either way, I think the best is example is Christ's prayer when he's hanging on the cross.

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

 

[JettaKnight]

Something for Foszoe:

Police, monks gear up for another battle on Mount Athos

ISTANBUL (RNS) — Over 100 monks deemed schismatic have been living on the holy mountain without authorization since 2002.

religionnews.com

I was kind of with the monks until this damning bit:

Archimandrite Methodios, the leader of the Esphigmenou monks on Mount Athos, has expressed favor for Russian ultranationalism and praised the idea of a Greek Hitler.

Uh... but they do have a cool flag:

It's nice to know that even Orthodox have their fundamentalist wackos.

 

[foszoe]

Something for Foszoe:

Police, monks gear up for another battle on Mount Athos

ISTANBUL (RNS) — Over 100 monks deemed schismatic have been living on the holy mountain without authorization since 2002.

religionnews.com

I was kind of with the monks until this damning bit:

Uh... but they do have a cool flag:

It's nice to know that even Orthodox have their fundamentalist wackos.

I wonder if that flag is for sale. Fly it with my Gadsden

 

[foszoe]

Amazon has it and also the one below hmm. Can deliver by next week.

 

[foszoe]

I will be the envy of the UPS driver when he comes back my lane and sees a USA, Gadsden, Orthodoxy or Death, and a Byzantine double eagle flying proudly in the wind!

 

[foszoe]

Since DEI is such is often such an INGO theme, combined with what Jetta was saying about love and how we think of and treat others, I thought I would post our presbyter's homily from last Sunday. He didn't title it as I would have. I would have entitled it, Orthodox DEI

If I’ve heard this declaration once, I’ve heard it hundreds of times: There is unity in diversity. On a purely social engineering level, the notion is pretty much the creed for those who possess a secular view of the world, a secular view of the society in which they live, a completely secular view of just about every facet of life: There is
unity in diversity.

The basic concept is that we simply lump together a bunch of different people—different races, different nationalities, different genders (actually the more the merrier)—and by some tinkering with training, social conditioning, and other define-as you-go words, all of these people will find how diverse they are and how united they are because they are so diverse. Sadly, it’s a flawed theory and of not much use when it is applied, because most of the time, it is applied with mandates, training sessions linked to salaries, and sometimes, shaming. First, those who crow about unity through diversity also see the need for regulation, rules, agendas—a tight governance to be sure people do not waver from the stated goal of unity. Second, group dynamics in such a setting have absolutely no room for contrary opinions, for suggestions for a different way of thinking—that sort of thing is right out. Finally, one of the observable and documented outcomes is no unity at all; instead there is quite often a fragmentation
into groups, in spite of the rigid controls to celebrate diversity and unify people. At best, there is stagnation; at worst, there is, in some cases, burning and looting. Yet all the while, those who are the controllers, the engineers, the experts—the overlords, these people consistently repeat the mantra: There is unity in diversity.

When we take that claim out of the boiling stew of social engineering, a much brighter and much truer fact emerges: there is indeed unity in diversity, but it’s not the result of human engineering; it isn’t produced by virtual signaling or
political correctness. Instead, it shows itself as an outcome of living one’s faith in God; it flows from the gift and the nourishment of God’s unending grace. Although the Apostle Paul doesn’t have the same way of declaring it, he does show us this superior method for finding unity in diversity. Likewise, we also discover that true unity is accompanied by true mercy.

St. Paul makes a major effort to show his readers and all Christians that unity isn’t something we invent or engineer. Instead, it is a continuation of God’s provision for humanity since He first pronounced, “Let there be….” Prior to explaining the fullness and truth of real unity, St. Paul wants us to know that faith is the vital instrument by which we find unity. He says, “For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him.” We all receive faith from God but at different capacities, depending upon how open we are to His leading and guiding. Faith, then, is only the beginning for true unity.

Next we are told: “For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” Clearly, everyone needs to put into action his or her gifts according to the measure of faith that each one displays. So Paul lists a few: “Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.” First, this is by no means an exhaustive list; it does show us, however, that diversity is God-given and not humanly contrived. Putting those gifts into God’s service becomes the next logical step. Looking at just one or two of them, you’ll get the idea.

For instance, service is rendered in countless ways and not just within the confines of a parish. Lots of us know of neighbors who may need help now and then with lawn work or simply taking groceries from the car to the house. Likewise, while at work, someone may encounter another person who could use an extra hand with a task. If any of you volunteer at some capacity in any of the local social service agencies or schools, you are serving.

A similar observation may be made with regard to teaching. It happens at church in both adult education and little church school, but beyond our limited borders, we can teach others about our Orthodox Faith, about the Bible, about some of the saints just by engaging in casual conversation. No classrooms, no books, no reading assignments are needed—just one person talking to another person, answering questions, offering invitations to church and so on. That’s teaching, too.

Since all of us possess different gifts, and since we need one another in putting those gifts into action, we find unity sometimes out of necessity or simply out of a desire to help others. You cannot engineer or demand or otherwise force that kind of unity; instead, as God directs us, nourishes us by His grace, we draw together in a healthy kind of interdependence.

That kind of true unity thrives best in an environment of true mercy. The Apostle provides a good first step toward showing mercy. “Let love be genuine,” he says, “hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Never flag in zeal, be aglow with the Spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.” We begin exhibiting such mercy as a
foundation for unity when we worship together. If you will, this church is our “proving ground” or “our laboratory.” It’s the place where we uncover our various gifts and put them into practice. When we leave the church and go back into the world, all that we have learned and practiced here must go with us. Think of it this way: gifts are best applied when mercy drives them.

Of the several encouraging actions the Apostle tells us to practice, he emphasizes love, saying let it be “genuine.” Genuine love isn’t play-acting. One doesn’t say one thing and do another, hoping to fool people into admiring our socalled virtues. Instead, such love is clearly described by St. Paul in his Corinthian letter, “Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never [fails]….” As we are called upon to show love in this uniquely Christ-like way—namely loving as Christ loves us—mercy will increase and unity will be strengthened. Let me say that again: when
we love as Christ loves us, mercy increases and unity is made strong. In like manner, the Apostle tells us that we should, “…hate what is evil [and] hold fast to what is good….” Well, of course! To be a Christian is to reject any and
all forms of evil, particularly those that lead to sin. Likewise, to hold on tightly to the good is to be well read in Holy Scripture as well as the Church Fathers and the lives of the saints; these sources point out what doing good actually looks like. It may involve sacrifice, that is in being more concerned about others than about ourselves. It may involve some inconvenience, which means putting ourselves out a bit in order to serve someone in need.

“Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” Although this command isn’t the summary of St. Paul’s list, I think it forms a good ending to what I’ve been trying to say about true unity and true mercy. For one
thing, since we know that our Lord has promised us the reward of eternal life, we can and should rejoice in that hope. We should not allow present sufferings to discourage us. And of course, patience is not only a virtue, it’s a requirement! As with so many parts of the Christian life, patience must be present if we ever want to have spiritual growth and maturity. Of all the Christian virtues, this one is probably the most neglected and certainly the one that people do not think of putting at the top of the list. And prayer…be constant in prayer. Actually, the original meaning for what is translated as “constant” carries this idea—be attached to prayer; let it be like a part of your body the way the fingers are attached to the hand. Prayer is or should be our constant occupation. Every spare moment should be clothed in prayer both to enable us to get through a day as well as to render continual thanksgiving to God.

Unity will not occur without hope, without patience, or without prayer. Also, as I mentioned earlier, mercy is something like the foundation for being unified with one another, as in these words of our Lord: “Be merciful, just as your Father [in heaven] is merciful.” If there is unity in diversity—and I think there is—we must see such a phenomenon, not as a humanly engineered program, but as the blessing of a good and gracious God upon His children. God grant us, then, the gifts that we need to accomplish true unity and the good sense to maintain it with true mercy.

 

[foszoe]

Bessed Transfiguration!

Troparion — Tone 7
You were transfigured on the mountain, O Christ God, / revealing Your glory to Your disciples as far as they could bear it. / Let Your everlasting Light also shine upon us sinners, / through the prayers of the Theotokos. / O Giver of Light, glory to You!

Kontakion — Tone 7
On the Mountain You were Transfigured, O Christ God, / and Your disciples beheld Your glory as far as they could see it; / so that when they would behold You crucified, / they would understand that Your suffering was voluntary, / and would proclaim to the world, / that You are truly the Radiance of the Father!

 

[historian]

I'm torn - on one hand I fully believe that following a Christian morality and ethics brings prosperity and grace, but on the other hand, to force it seems counter to the Gospel - or maybe just how we force it.

When we force the world to conform to Christian moral by laws, economic coercion, or even threats, what have we achieved in actually bringing about the Kingdom?

I, as a Christian, do follow this because I have to, but because I want to. I want to live as Christ out of love and thankfulness for the grace and mercy He gives me and the sacrifice he made at the cross.

If I force someone to follow a Christian ethic, they don't do it for the same reason and are just as condemned. There's nothing you can do to be righteous.


It's a fine line between protecting your freedom, you church, and your families from a sinful world and going too far to be imposing a religious society that has the mere veneer of righteousness, yet underneath is rotten.



Either way, I think the best is example is Christ's prayer when he's hanging on the cross.

In a Roman system, we would have no say and live as peacefully as possible. However, in a democracy, we have a right and duty to vote for a Christian ethic as much as possible. Someone's ethics is always going to be applied to the law. Rolling over and pretending we should not do anything because it would impose what is good and right and order the universe to God seems off. We should do whatever we can to order our cities, states, and country toward God by all legal means necessary, including at the ballot box.

 

[foszoe]

I have been reading on anger lately and came across this. Thought it was worth sharing.

Most people, when angered by someone, think the best way to deal with the anger is by avoiding the person who offended us. The problem with this approach is that it allows the anger to take root in the heart, festering as a sinful passion. Because anger is a sin, it can not be conquered by avoiding the person who made us angry. It must be rooted out by love, and this requires us to reach out to the offender.

The Lord said, “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head (Romans 12:20).” The only way we can battle with the passion of anger is by setting aside our petty egos, and reaching out to the offender.

We must realize that the anger we feel is not really about the person who has offended us, but about the sin that lurks in our own hearts. If we were not plagued by the passion of anger, we would not have become angry to begin with. If we are to conquer the sins that have taken root in our own heart, we must return only love and kindness to the person who has offended us. By doing so, we sow the seeds of Christ’s love in both of us.

With love in Christ,
Abbot Tryphon

 

[historian]

Note that each one of those passages are squarely aimed at His people, not the worldly sinners.

I was chewing on this last night as I thought about the Democrat VP Pick. He went after those who claimed to be His people. They weren't, but they spoke in His name and for Him, leading people away from Him. We are way too nice to condemn those who use His name in vain. We accept the UMC, PCUSA, ELCA, UCC, etc., and we don't even get righteously angry at those who applaud, from a pulpit, things that God calls abominations, child sacrifice, and worship of idols.

Jeremiah 8:11 comes to mind on this.

 

[foszoe]

I was chewing on this last night as I thought about the Democrat VP Pick. He went after those who claimed to be His people. They weren't, but they spoke in His name and for Him, leading people away from Him. We are way too nice to condemn those who use His name in vain. We accept the UMC, PCUSA, ELCA, UCC, etc., and we don't even get righteously angry at those who applaud, from a pulpit, things that God calls abominations, child sacrifice, and worship of idols.

Jeremiah 8:11 comes to mind on this.

Prologue: I intended this to be brief but by the time I got done, I realize it got much longer. I do not mean any offense to historian or anyone else. I may edit it a few times for clarity or in the interest of charity after posting. Espeically since once it scrolls off my small screen, I can't remember what I typed You have been warned.

Even though I THINK I understand your sentiment, I think it is somewhat anachronistic. I am not sure it's as cut and dry as that.

The entire old testament is the story of God and His people, even though his people weren't always doing what he wanted, they were still his people.

When Christ walked the earth, he did so as a Jew. Even at his time, there was not one Jewish monolithic expression. There were Zealots, Essenes, Pharisees, Saduccees, etc. I would say they were still his people.

After Ascension and Pentecost, there weren't suddenly Jews and Christians either. The first Christians would have considered themselves Jews. They were just Jews that believed the prophecies of the Messiah had been fulfilled. So, I would say we can lump in the first Christians with the Jews above. That is almost certainly the view of the civil authority at the time. Roman authorities made no distinction between Jews and Christians. Christians were just another Jewish sect.

As scripture says, there must be schisms and it will always be so. I speak as an Orthodox Christian but believe I can lump in Roman Catholic belief here also. There are too many Orthodox and Latins that get hung up on being the one Church. Now I certainly believe there is one True Church, but there was no time in the history of the Church were there was only one Church. From the beginning, there were various groups of Christians. Over time, a consensus develops on what the teaching of the One True Church is and that continues to this day. Latins and Orthodox both would hold that was happening before Paul ever penned his Thessalonian letters and it was this coalescence that gave the Sola Scriptura variety Christians their Bible, but I do not write this in the spirit of a polemic.

So how do we, today, try to understand where we are now? I hold the position that there are heresies and there are heretics and that there is a difference. Again I am going to overgeneralize some for the sake of "brevity"

First rule. God is the judge of the individual person, not any of us.
Heresy means simply choice. Schism means division. In common terms a heresy is a wrong belief. A heretic is one who CHOOSES to believe wrongly


So to lay the groundwork, I would say when you say people, I would say that means a group, a Qahal, an Ecclesia that holds the correct dogmas.

However there can be individuals within that group that don't adhere to the dogmas proclaimed by that group. This is one traditional understanding of the parables of the wheat and tares for example, where the Church is made up of wheat (sheep) and tares(goats). However these tares don't schism, they just mostly keep to themselves etc.

Now anyone can believe a heresy. That alone however does not make them a heretic. There must be a conscious choice to believe something contrary to a known teaching of the Church. If this person, once made aware of the error, unites themselves to the Church, they were never a heretic.

Now if a person remains obstinate in their teaching, they are excommunicated or placed outside the visible Church.

If that person than chooses not only to believe the heresy but starts a new community that teaches the heresy then we have schism. Those would be the ones that are actively leading others away from the Church.

So if I, as an Orthodox Christian, and meaning no offense while still being true to my beliefs, had to say anything about Christianity today, I would say the Roman Catholic church is schismatic and heretical in its teaching. I would say Protestant churches are Heterodox. When it comes to the people in those churches, I would say most are neither schismatic or heretical because they have never made a deliberate choice in either division or heresy.

So to come full circle, I hold the leadership responsible, who should know better, for leading their flock away from Him, not the flock. Those who are teaching heresy and lead others into error will be held accountable. The folks in the pews, after several centuries of developing their own traditions, are mostly ignorant of Church History through no fault of their own. So when I discuss these things here with y'all, I don't consider you heretics or schismatics. I just consider you ignorant . I would expect you view me similarly or worse which I am fine with too. Everything I say could be wrong, its up to you to fact check me
After all that is how the one True Church has ironed out dogma and doctrine from the beginning. Disagreements arise, they are discussed, and, if necessary, right teachings are affirmed wrong teachings are declared.