Other fathers, John of Damasdcus, Cyril etc. are just that, individual fathers. We do not consider them infallible. You are confusing Rome with Constantinople. Orthodox Doctrine is what the Church as a whole agrees on Synodically, that is all the patriarchs of all Orthodox Churches.
Philaret's canonical crap, excuse the expression, was never accepted by the (pan-Orthodox) Synod of the Orthodox Church!!! Philaret's canonical opinion remains a short-lived aberration that never became orthodox doctrine except for the poor Russioan orthodox who were forcefed his fallacy.
Russian Church also believes in "Toll Houses." They write about them as if they are dogma. Since Russian is a "major" Church (in fact 80% of Orthodox Chirstians are Russian Orthodox), it must be true. No it isn't. That's not how the concilliar Orthodox Church Community works; all the patriarches must be of the same mind to balidate a doctrine or a dogma.
The Orthodox Church recognizes St. Auhgustine as a Saint, but you will not find any of his "original sin," "total depravity" or proto-Protestant redemption doctrine taught in any Orethodox church, even though Cyril Lucas would have loved to do. The Church is coonciliar. The whole Church must consent or else it is not official doctrine. What Philaret claimed is not, never was, never will be Orthodox canon.
the Church of Constantinople didn't include Revelation into the canon until after the 9th century. You are looking at this from a legalistic mindset which is alien to eastern orthodoxy. We establish dioctrine by consent of all patriarchs, not one.
The Answers of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to certain Lutheran divines, in condemnation of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, 1576 (published at Wittenberg, 1584), were sanctioned by the Synod of Jerusalem, but are devoid of clearness and point, and therefore of little use
I have read his brilliant work many times and it is as clear as a bell. But, then again, one's mind must not be Deformed to see it that way.
Lucas was a heretic and was booted out of the Church. His satanic craftiness got him where he was and, like the satan in the desert, he hoped to fool God and destroy His Church. He failed. There is no winning with satan and his angles.
And you are repeating yourself.
I never said that what they said represented Orthodox doctrine.
What I said is that your church had high officals in it that believed as do the Protestants in many areas.
Philaret's canonical crap, excuse the expression, was never accepted by the (pan-Orthodox) Synod of the Orthodox Church!!! Philaret's canonical opinion remains a short-lived aberration that never became orthodox doctrine except for the poor Russioan orthodox who were forcefed his fallacy.
And again, never said that it did but there were high Orthodox officals who believed it and it was in a major catechism.
Russian Church also believes in "Toll Houses." They write about them as if they are dogma. Since Russian is a "major" Church (in fact 80% of Orthodox Chirstians are Russian Orthodox), it must be true. No it isn't. That's not how the concilliar Orthodox Church Community works; all the patriarches must be of the same mind to balidate a doctrine or a dogma.
Did not say that it was Orthodox 'doctrine' and if you actually read what was posted, neither did Schaff.
Those later creeds were certain Orthodox responses to the Protestant/Catholic clash.
Some favored the Protestant side, others the Catholic one.
The Orthodox Church recognizes St. Auhgustine as a Saint, but you will not find any of his "original sin," "total depravity" or proto-Protestant redemption doctrine taught in any Orethodox church, even though Cyril Lucas would have loved to do. The Church is coonciliar. The whole Church must consent or else it is not official doctrine. What Philaret claimed is not, never was, never will be Orthodox canon.
And did I say otherwise?
Yet that catechism was a major one, and a strongely leaning 'Protestant' one.
the Church of Constantinople didn't include Revelation into the canon until after the 9th century. You are looking at this from a legalistic mindset which is alien to eastern orthodoxy. We establish dioctrine by consent of all patriarchs, not one.
And you are just trying to blow smoke as usual.
Your church had high placed officals and theologians who believed and taught 'Protestant' doctrine, including issuing a major catechism.
Thus, when you attempt to brush those views aside being 'Protestant heresies' they were in fact embraced by some of your own theologians and Greek Church Fathers
The Answers of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to certain Lutheran divines, in condemnation of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, 1576 (published at Wittenberg, 1584), were sanctioned by the Synod of Jerusalem, but are devoid of clearness and point, and therefore of little use I have read his brilliant work many times and it is as clear as a bell. But, then again, one's mind must not be Deformed to see it that way.
The Answers of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantioniple' is a anti-Reformed response, while others such as the Catechism is a pro-one Protestant one.
Lucas was a heretic and was booted out of the Church. His satanic craftiness got him where he was and, like the satan in the desert, he hoped to fool God and destroy His Church. He failed. There is no winning with satan and his angles.
The Longer Catechism was a major one and it was accepted as legimate by the Orthodox church.
As for Satan and his angels, you are correct, that is one needs to separate from both the Orthodox Churches and RCC since both reject the only way to salvation, faith alone in Christ alone.