Dear brother Steve,
Long time since we’ve been on the same thread! Glad to see ya!
Always good to see you too my friend, and I’m always interested in your thoughts
M:
Yes and no. From what I understand,
orthodoxinfo.com is a neo-traditionalist site. Though it promotes certain late (“late” with respect to the Church’s history, not “late” as in recent) developments in EO’xy, it also promotes very traditional beliefs, such as non-ecumenism and the beliefs contained in the link you provided.
I only use the site because many EO who post here, use it…presumably because it supports their views as well. In fact an EO on this forum gave me that very link to defend their view.
M:
There is a debate within Eastern Orthodoxy on the beliefs contained in that link. One side extolls such things as toll-houses and the value of suffering, while the other side denies it. In another Orthodox site I know, they have a special restricted-access forum where more polemic discussions can be held without moderator intervention. Debates on the issue of toll-houses between the Orthodox are confined to that special forum – which is telling.
Yes it is telling.
M:
No. I was thinking even more primal. Purgatory and Toll Houses are not primal concepts. They are built on more elementary ideas such as the Communion of Saints, purification after death, intercession for the dead, etc. We need to find common ground through these elementary ideas, not the developments that flowed from them.
I find this ground has much commonality, and the descriptions of the afterlife once we wade through the descriptions have much symilarity also.
What I see most often from some EO is the denial of the symilarities even in the face of evidence.
M:
Again, yes and no. There is much in what is described above that is similar to the doctrine of indulgences, but there are also elements that are not.
Similarities:
- the same ultimate effect, which is attainment of heaven.
- by release of the soul from the “third state”
- which is effected with the Church’s suffrage (i.e., intercession)
- through propitiation (i.e., appeasement through offerings, not just simple prayer)
- to relieve the suffering of the soul
- and the debt due to sin,
- not covered by repentance,
- the offerings being our own good works aside from the Holy Sacrifice.
Prayers for the dead are one thing. When you kick in
prayers + alms giving + good works by the faithful for the dead to be released from their sin now you have indulgence for the dead, as described in that link.
I hope Mickey is paying attention. Even if he personally doesn’t subscribe to it, the EO do. And since no ONE speaks for the Orthodox, he can’t say the EO don’t believe in indulgences. I really don’t think he knew this about the EO.
M:
Perceived differences (these are between EO and Latins):
- For EO, a soul is released through the mercy of God, while for the Latins, a soul is released through the Treasury of merits (though, of course, God’s application of the merits is motivated by His Mercy);
Yes and no.
Both EO and Catholics apply merits.
For the Catholic, merits only aid the soul in the process, they don’t release a soul. Souls are only released by the Mercy of God when their memory intellect and will are completely transformed to the will of God…
M:
- For EO, the primary motive for the third state is God’s Love and Mercy, while for the Latins, it is God’s Justice;
Both look at it as God’s mercy.
As you know, purfication (purgation) before heaven is scriptural. After death and judgement if a person is saved, the dross is removed,[1 Cor 3:15] because “nothing unclean shall enter”. [Rev 21:27]
It’s Mercy
& justice
M:
Having explained that, also remember that there are many EO who don’t agree with that essay from
orthodoxinfo.com. Brother Mickey is apparently one of those (Father Ambrose, if you remember him, was also of the same opinion), which is perhaps the reason why he was not interested in debating the matter.
Yes I remember Fr Ambrose well. We had many discussions.
I think what we are seeing played out is, no ONE speaks for EO. As soon as someone comes forward to claim such a position they seem to get shot down. Therefore, Re: Mickey or Fr Ambrose, they can’t say with any authority what EO believes because they can’t speak for all EO either they can speak for some at best… …true?
M:
I wholeheartedly agree, as far as the dogma of Purgatory is concerned anyway, bereft of the theologoumena of the Latin Church.
Did you notice all the theologoumena in that EO site?
As you know when the Catholic Church defines a belief, she offers tons of support and references that span scripture, tradition and the magesterium’s teaching.
Thanks Marduk for your thoughts
