A Problem I have noticed with Byzantine Catholicism in the West

[jeannetherese]

You are 100 percent correct, By being Byzantine Catholic, I am not in communion with my mother Church, the Antiochians, whilst at the same time I am not accepted by alot of Roman catholics due to supposed “issues with eastern schismatic theology”. However, Our Vocation as Eastern Catholics is to be the bridge between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The main reason for the schism is lack of trust and suspicions on both sides. By being Byzantine Catholic in every way, shape and form, with authentic Byzantine spirituality and theology, we show the Church, Both Rome and Constantinople (and other Jurisdictions) that we an bring an end to the schism by learning to trust each other.

As a cradle Catholic, raised in the Latin tradition, I have been taught throughout my life that our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are part of the warp and woof of Catholisicsm.
I’ve never heard a word about the possibility of being schismatic in relation to our family members.
I pray that the tensions between Orthodox and Catholic be lessened.
May God bless all who visit this thread.
Amen.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Hello,

I am a convert from Orthodoxy to Byzantine Catholicism. Something which seems to be bothering me and doesn’t seem to go away is the fact that so many of the sub-deacons and younger generation (and even older generations) suffer from latinization in theology. Some of the latinizations in my local Melkite Parish include:

1. Priest praying for the Souls in Purgatory
2. Stations of the cross in the Building
3. Congregation kneeling during consecration
4. Spoken Divine Liturgy without the use of Incense
5. Belief in all 23 Catholic Councils as Ecumenical
6. Expressing Sin in Mortal vs Venial Terminology

This truly bothers me. I am very happy to be in communion with the Roman Church, But I was under the impression that Rome wanted us to return to authentic Orthodox THeology and Patrimony. I am a Big supporter or the Zhogby Initiative Statement of Faith.

What are peoples thoughts? I am not attacking my christian brothers and sisters, I just do not know what to do.

Being in Communion with Rome IS Orthodox. Just to point out the obvious, the Orthodox don’t call it Purgatory, but you have noticed they pray for the dead, correct? Your thing says you are Melkite, I have noticed they actually seem to be the least Latinised. I do sometimes attend a Byzantine Rite Melkite Divine Liturgy, and I have never once seen the Stations of the Cross in the Melkite Church building. Just beautiful iconography. Purgatory, by the way is a Dogma, something all Catholics, including eastern, are to accept. By the way, there have been 21 ecumenical councils, not 23. I am not trying to be harsh, but the irony of Eastern Orthodoxy is that one may not be full Orthodox unless they are in communion with the Pope of Rome.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The subject of Purgatory has always been very speculative. Even at Trent, in the Decree on Purgatory, they only say, “Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ.” The Church does not really definitvely impose more than this. At Florence, they were careful to assure the Greek Christians that they did not even mean to impose the idea of a literal fire. To see why a Byzantine Catholic might not want to have their Church adopt theology that is unfamiliar, imagine if your Latin priest started teaching you about toll houses in his sermons.

orthodoxinfo.com/death/theodora.aspx

 

[Peter_J]

If it is true in Latin, it is true in Greek …

You could actually go a step further than that: the belief can be expressed, not just *as *clearly, but *more *clearly, in Greek.

Or even as someone who knows only a few dozen Greek words, I can clarify Latin or English statements like “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” by explaining that the “proceeding” (processio in Latin) from the Son is not referring to *ekporeusis *but to proienai.

 

[Peter_J]

**Being in Communion with Rome IS Orthodox. ** Just to point out the obvious, the Orthodox don’t call it Purgatory, but you have noticed they pray for the dead, correct? Your thing says you are Melkite, I have noticed they actually seem to be the least Latinised. I do sometimes attend a Byzantine Rite Melkite Divine Liturgy, and I have never once seen the Stations of the Cross in the Melkite Church building. Just beautiful iconography. Purgatory, by the way is a Dogma, something all Catholics, including eastern, are to accept. By the way, there have been 21 ecumenical councils, not 23. I am not trying to be harsh, but the irony of Eastern Orthodoxy is that one may not be full Orthodox unless they are in communion with the Pope of Rome.

I’ll leave it to you to decide whether you’re being “harsh”, but in any case I think you ought to become better educated about the term Orthodox before posting on this forum.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes but Orthodox in communion with Rome clearly is not saying that. Its speaking of the eastern churches called Orthodox as proper noun not as an adjective of their faith as the way catholic use orthodox. For even in the sense you described Latins call themselves orthodox. You are being disingenuous. Even the Zoghby initiative specifies that they claim to be Eastern Orthodox in faith. You are clearly twisting words here.

That’s because they have valid sacraments.

Because Pope Victor decreed Latin to be the official language of the of the Roman church by the end of the 2nd century. By the second century the roman church of north Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Libya) was unanimously Latin. By the fourth century, despite the liturgy being celebrated in Greek although Latin began to creep in, the majority of western fathers already primarily wrote and taught in Latin. By the time of Chalcedon the fathers of the west unanimously expressed the theological tradition in Latin. Thus having a council decree authoritatively in Greek terms foreign to Latin would be grounds for the Latins then to protest **but they didn’t ** because this is not a grounds for contention. If what is said can be understood even in foreign terms then there need not be any issue.

Now they do. Back then they didn’t complain about language but argued about substance. Today I’ve seen a number of melkites deny the filioque based on it being expressed in Latin.

If it is true in Latin, it is true in Greek …

You could actually go a step further than that: the belief can be expressed, not just as clearly, but *more *clearly, in Greek.

Or even as someone who knows only a few dozen Greek words, I can clarify Latin or English statements like “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” by explaining that the “proceeding” (processio in Latin) from the Son is not referring to the *ekporeusis *but to proienai.

 

[docnerves]

I must point out that PURGATORY IS NOT A DOGMA… It is a doctrine and again, as indicated in Treat of Brest; Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”

Being in Communion with Rome IS Orthodox. Just to point out the obvious, the Orthodox don’t call it Purgatory, but you have noticed they pray for the dead, correct? Your thing says you are Melkite, I have noticed they actually seem to be the least Latinised. I do sometimes attend a Byzantine Rite Melkite Divine Liturgy, and I have never once seen the Stations of the Cross in the Melkite Church building. Just beautiful iconography. Purgatory, by the way is a Dogma, something all Catholics, including eastern, are to accept. By the way, there have been 21 ecumenical councils, not 23. I am not trying to be harsh, but the irony of Eastern Orthodoxy is that one may not be full Orthodox unless they are in communion with the Pope of Rome.

 

[Vico]

I must point out that PURGATORY IS NOT A DOGMA… It is a doctrine and again, as indicated in Treat of Brest; Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”

Purgatory is a dogma of faith, defined by the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

SESSION 25, DECREE CONCERNING PURGATORY.Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and everywhere proclaimed by the faithful of Christ.…

SESSION 6, ON JUSTIFICATIONCANON XXX. — If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

UNION OF BREST (1595)5.—We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.

 

[Kosta]

However, Our Vocation as Eastern Catholics is to be the bridge between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The main reason for the schism is lack of trust and suspicions on both sides. By being Byzantine Catholic in every way, shape and form, with authentic Byzantine spirituality and theology, we show the Church, Both Rome and Constantinople (and other Jurisdictions) that we an bring an end to the schism by learning to trust each other.

Yeah, and how’s that working out for you? By the looks of this discussion, not too well.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Kosta,

It is one thing when a sibling corrects their brother or speaks about their parents, but quite another when the neighbor tries to chime in. It would probably be prudent to stay out of the way.

 

[griego_catolico]

Excellent example. The sad part is that the practice of “Adoration” (and “Benediction” too, for that matter) wasn’t exactly imposed. It was, rather, enthusiastically adopted in order to mimic the Latins. At least it is so for the Maronites, and I believe the rest of the Orient and East as well (although it may have been imposed on the Syro-Malabars after 1598). In any case, I suppose this was done to show how “Catholic” we are (read: how much we love being subservient to Rome). Lord have mercy.

Even the Melkites accepted Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, composing their own service of Benediction: westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/06/melkite-rite-of-benediction-of-most.html
They also incorporated the feast of Corpus Christi into their liturgical calendar: stjosephmelkitecatholicchurch.org/mobil_feast_of_the_lord/index.album/p-alignleftbifeast-of-the-divine-body?i=8
The feast is still retained and celebrated.

 

[docnerves]

I thank you for the quote/reference and I am truly grateful.

I followed up on your post and I have done a little more research but I am yet to have found a Papal Bull with regard to Purgatory. A council can propose what ever it wishes and/or define things to the extent that they can define them however; a council cannot proclaim dogma, that is reserved specifically for the Seat of Peter and without any evidence of the Papal Bull, I can’t accept your statement that Purgatory is Dogma for Latins (let alone anyone else).

Now, please understand, I am not disputing the Latin teaching of purgatory as it is logical within the confines of Latin Theology. The EC churches have our own ideas of what occurs immediately upon death but we don’t subscribe the the Latin Formula as it is inconsistent with Byzantine Theology and we are not subject to Latin theology/doctrine. There are times that these do overlap.

Even if there is a Papal Bull, I must again refer you to the Treaties of Brest and Uzorhod specifically address this issue with regard to the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches respectively, and I cannot speak for the other Eastern Churches as I am not well versed in their theologies and doctrines.

The Church is one… but that doesn’t mean the same… there are many forms of expression and each one is equally as valid as the other. There are however; theologies that vary and it requires the Synod of Bishops to agree as a whole (Episcopatos Uno Est) and then the Seat of Peter to sign the Bull (and I can tell you for fact, you do not have the Bishops of the Church in full accord on this and I doubt that there is a Papal Bull).

That being said, I greatly appreciate the discussion and look forward to more discussions.

Z Bohom+ (With God)

Purgatory is a dogma of faith, defined by the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

SESSION 25, DECREE CONCERNING PURGATORY.Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and everywhere proclaimed by the faithful of Christ.…

SESSION 6, ON JUSTIFICATIONCANON XXX. — If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

UNION OF BREST (1595)5.—We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.

 

[Vico]

I thank you for the quote/reference and I am truly grateful.

I followed up on your post and I have done a little more research but I am yet to have found a Papal Bull with regard to Purgatory. A council can propose what ever it wishes and/or define things to the extent that they can define them however; a council cannot proclaim dogma, that is reserved specifically for the Seat of Peter and without any evidence of the Papal Bull, I can’t accept your statement that Purgatory is Dogma for Latins (let alone anyone else).

Now, please understand, I am not disputing the Latin teaching of purgatory as it is logical within the confines of Latin Theology. The EC churches have our own ideas of what occurs immediately upon death but we don’t subscribe the the Latin Formula as it is inconsistent with Byzantine Theology and we are not subject to Latin theology/doctrine. There are times that these do overlap.

Even if there is a Papal Bull, I must again refer you to the Treaties of Brest and Uzorhod specifically address this issue with regard to the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches respectively, and I cannot speak for the other Eastern Churches as I am not well versed in their theologies and doctrines.

The Church is one… but that doesn’t mean the same… there are many forms of expression and each one is equally as valid as the other. There are however; theologies that vary and it requires the Synod of Bishops to agree as a whole (Episcopatos Uno Est) and then the Seat of Peter to sign the Bull (and I can tell you for fact, you do not have the Bishops of the Church in full accord on this and I doubt that there is a Papal Bull).

That being said, I greatly appreciate the discussion and look forward to more discussions.

Z Bohom+ (With God)

BULL OF OUR MOST HOLY LORD PIUS IV., BY PROVIDENCE OF GOD, POPE, TOUCHING THE CONFIRMATION OF THE OECUMENICAL (AND) GENERAL COUNCIL OF TRENT.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html

Sessions – see Session 6, CANON XXX and Session 25
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

 

[griego_catolico]

The EC churches have our own ideas of what occurs immediately upon death but we don’t subscribe the the Latin Formula as it is inconsistent with Byzantine Theology and we are not subject to Latin theology/doctrine. There are times that these do overlap.

There is no such thing as “Latin doctrines” as if it applies to only Roman Catholics. Truth is truth and it applies to everyone. Yes, there may be different ways of explaining the truth but it cannot be contradictory.

For example, Catholic teaching is that at the moment of death, the soul experiences “particular judgment” and then, based on that judgment, goes to heaven (via purgatory, if necessary) where it experiences the Beatific Vision or goes to hell. Those in purgatory are helped by the prayers of the living. No soul in purgatory goes to hell; all souls in purgatory eventually go to heaven. After purification, the soul goes to heaven and experiences the Beatific Vision. All souls in heaven experience the Beatific Vision even before the Final Judgment.

The teaching found among Eastern Orthodoxy is that the soul does not go directly to heaven or hell after death, but goes to “hades” where it experiences a foretaste of salvation or condemnation. These souls are helped by the prayers of living, Souls in “hades” who have a foretaste of hell can still be saved through the prayers of the living. There is also the controversial teaching of “toll-houses” which is not accepted by all of Orthodoxy. It implies that a soul on its way to heaven can still be dragged to hell by the demons. It is only until the Final Judgment that the souls in “hades” go to heaven or hell.

All Catholics, of whatever liturgical tradition, are bound to believe what the Catholic Church teaches. Although purgatory and “hades” may have some similarities, they are in fact different. It is against Catholic teaching for any Catholic of whatever liturgical tradition to believe that a soul is “detained” from going to heaven or hell before the Final Judgment.

 

[griego_catolico]

QUESTION:

Are we Orthodox united with Rome? Several different people have written in asking some variation on this most fundament of questions. Since each question was directed in a slightly different way, Bishop John has chosen a rather more complete answer.

BISHOP JOHN ELYA’S ANSWER

Sometimes I think that the Melkite Catholic Church, as well as other Byzantine Catholic Churches, enjoys the best of two worlds: Orthodoxy and Catholicism. We rejoice in the affirmation of the good Pope John XXIII that “what unites us is much greater than what divides us.”
When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.
An illustration may help: Is the Province of Quebec a province of France united to the British Crown through Canada, or a Canadian province with special relations to France? Is the Melkite Church a hundred per cent Catholic with special relations with the Orthodox Churches or a hundred per cent Orthodox with special relations to Rome. Certainly, the first case is true:
The Melkite Church is a hundred per cent Catholic, but not a hundred per cent Orthodox.
Independence and sovereignty or dependence on another Church? Such a decision is difficult to make. However, the Melkite Church has chosen dependency as a price for unity, in order to comply with the will of our Lord who prayed repeatedly “that all may be one.” (John 17)
Source: melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

 

[griego_catolico]

QUESTION:

“My question is regarding the position of an Eastern Catholic (a Greek-Catholic, such as a Melchite) as to the pope’s encyclicals. In particular, this came up in a discussion on Humanae Vitae and a person made the statement that the encyclical only pertained to the Roman Catholics and didn’t concern us at all, especially since the “Orthodox Church” has a different position on birth control. It is my understanding that we are not “Orthodox in communion with Rome” but we are Greek Catholics in union with Rome therefore we are obliged to accept Roman doctrines such as Purgatory, Papal Infallibility and their positions on birth control. Is this true?

BISHOP JOHN ELYA ’S ANSWER:

When we declared our union with Rome – in consistency with Apostolic tradition interrupted somehow by historical circumstances – we accepted the Catholic faith in its entirety. We do recognize the authority of the Pope of Rome, including universal jurisdiction and infallibility for whatever concerns faith and morals. It is true that the Western Theologians themselves have their own debates concerning these points; so we should not be “more papist that the Pope;” but Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as “Orthodox united to Rome” only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for “unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.”
There is no ‘Eastern truth’ vs ‘Western truth’. Truth is one. It may be articulated according to various cultural expressions, but truth is super-cultural. **Truth should not be restricted by “party line” positions. We should accept or reject ideas for their worth and not for an artificial attachment to a given “identity.” The Church teaches truth. If something is true, it would be absurd to say “Oh, we don’t believe that in the East.” **This seems to be where we get short-circuited in ecumenical “dialogue.” All too frequently, such “dialogue” seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak “your truth” and I’ll speak “my truth” and we’ll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia.
As to the Catholic position on birth control, we have no choice to accept it or leave it. If we leave the Catholic position, can we still pretend to be Catholic? “Humanae Vitae” is a given. However time is too short here to elaborate on its interpretations and implications by various theologians and National Episcopal Conferences. I must add, however, that Humanae Vitae is now much more appreciated in many academic circles as we come to realize its merit, especially regarding the dignity of marriage and the great abuses in recent years such as surrogate motherhood, sperm banks and cloning of humans, to name but few.
Here are two relevant canons from OUR Eastern Catholic Church Law:
c. 597 CCEO: “The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus), possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.”
c. 599: :A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of faith and morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim with a definitive act.; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.”
Source: melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites

 

[Vico]

…

There is an even stronger canon, CCEO:Canon 598 –

§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[griego_catolico]

There is an even stronger canon, CCEO:Canon 598 –

§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Yes, thank you, I was going to post that as well.

 

[SyroMalankara]

In all honesty, it does no good to quote latinized canons and latinized clergy to ‘prove’ that the Latin words are superior.

You keep referring to purgatory as a place when Easterners have always recognized the soul as being in a ‘state’ not any ‘place’, which the Latins have lately come around to reaffirming, something they misunderstood as a ‘place’ somewhere around the 1300s. As a ‘state’ of the soul being purified in the ‘fire’ of God’s energies, the Byzantine understanding makes a lot of sense in the Byzantine context. You all keep trying to unnecessarily impose the Latin construct onto Byzantine theology, and distort both.

 

[SyroMalankara]

There is no such thing as “Latin doctrines” as if it applies to only Roman Catholics. Truth is truth and it applies to everyone. Yes, there may be different ways of explaining the truth but it cannot be contradictory.

For example, Catholic teaching is that at the moment of death, the soul experiences “particular judgment” and then, based on that judgment, goes to heaven (via purgatory, if necessary) where it experiences the Beatific Vision or goes to hell. Those in purgatory are helped by the prayers of the living. No soul in purgatory goes to hell; all souls in purgatory eventually go to heaven. After purification, the soul goes to heaven and experiences the Beatific Vision. All souls in heaven experience the Beatific Vision even before the Final Judgment.

The teaching found among Eastern Orthodoxy is that the soul does not go directly to heaven or hell after death, but goes to “hades” where it experiences a foretaste of salvation or condemnation. These souls are helped by the prayers of living, Souls in “hades” who have a foretaste of hell can still be saved through the prayers of the living. There is also the controversial teaching of “toll-houses” which is not accepted by all of Orthodoxy. It implies that a soul on its way to heaven can still be dragged to hell by the demons. It is only until the Final Judgment that the souls in “hades” go to heaven or hell.

All Catholics, of whatever liturgical tradition, are bound to believe what the Catholic Church teaches. Although purgatory and “hades” may have some similarities, they are in fact different. It is against Catholic teaching for any Catholic of whatever liturgical tradition to believe that a soul is “detained” from going to heaven or hell before the Final Judgment.

What does Hippolytus of ROME say: newadvent.org/fathers/0520.htm
2. Thus far, then, on the subject of Hades, in which the souls of all are detained until the time which God has determined; and then He will accomplish a resurrection of all, not by transferring souls into other bodies, but by raising the bodies themselves