R
RuthByzCat3
Guest
I already said this! Did you read my post?
Never heard of the toll house thing… Some say things like this just to be in disagreement.
- Status
H
Hesychios
Guest
Roman Catholics seem to have traditionally thought of Purgatory as a place. Perhaps we can call this nothing more than a theological opinion, I don’t know. What I do know is that I was taught the idea of ‘place’ when I was young, but the nuns were not doctors of Theology (as far as I could tell) and they were not personally infallible I suppose, they only knew what they were told themselves.
Perhaps another theological opinion in the western church will come to the fore in time, as I believe Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI expressed this opinion: Purgatory is not a separate place, but actually a process, and the actual nature of the process is not all that clear (I suppose there will always be speculation about that). This is far more like the eastern Christian thoughts on the subject.
Personally, I am not sure ‘purgation’ is an adequate term, it is certainly not in itself equivalent to Theosis as an idea, but the abandonment of the concept of ‘place’ is probably a positive step.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
That is incorrect. For example, according to an Eastern Catholic bishop in communion with the Bishop of Rome…
With regard to the specific question of whether the Ecumenical Council of Trent is binding upon Eastern Catholics, the bishop stated:
You say that you are in communion with Rome. You might want to ask your own bishop what he teaches, as it seems clear to me that you are not speaking for all Eastern Catholics who are in communion with Rome.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
As for Eastern Orthodoxy not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, this is what they have said regarding the doctrine of purgatory:
Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, AD 1672:
Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, AD 1672:
Although the term “purgatory” is avoided, the above teaching, promulgated by an Eastern Patriarch and 68 Eastern Bishops, seems to be congruent with Catholic doctrine.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
As for filioque, St. Maximus of Constantinople defended it. While the expression is not part of Eastern tradition, it is congruent with the deposit of Catholic faith according to ancient Eastern Christianity, defended by no less a theologian this great 7th century saint from Constantinople.
St. Maximus, expressing ancient Eastern Christian teaching, also had this to say, regarding the jurisidicational primacy of the Bishop of Rome:
St. Maximus, expressing ancient Eastern Christian teaching, also had this to say, regarding the jurisidicational primacy of the Bishop of Rome:
Like St. Maximus of ancient Eastern Christiantiy, I’m convinced of the above teaching regarding the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, which is why I’m Catholic.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
These quotes and answers are not necessarily the opinions of our Eparch, but the opinions of a titular bishop within the Eparchy of Newton. In other words, he is not the “head” of our particular Church. It is noteworthy that this particular bishop is one of, I believe, two Melkite bishops who did not sign the famous Zoghby Initiative (all of the other American Melkite bishops signed it, including our Eparch). It is also noteworthy that our own Eparchy publishes books by another Melkite Bishop who expresses the exact opposite opinion. Who do we believe? Personally I tend to follow the majority of our bishops, including our current Patriarch, who is the head of the entire Melkite Church and ultimately has the final say, who signed their assent to the Zoghby Initiative, particularly the statement:
- I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches.
- I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals according to the limits understood by the Greek Fathers in the First Milennium before the separation.
L
Little_Boy_Lost
Guest
Saint Nikolai Velimirovic was once asked, what is the meaning of Christ’s Words, “I came to cast fire upon the earth?”
Saint Nikolai responded with the following:
We often speak of the fire of envy, the fire of hatred, the fire of lust, the fire of every vicious passion. Of course such fire was not brought to the earth by Christ, the King of Glory and Truth. Far from it, that impure, unclean fire comes from the whirlwinds of hell which splashes over the whole earth. But Christ brought that Holy fire with which He has been burning and glowing from eternity to eternity. That is the fire of truth, and of love. A pure fire, a divine fire, from the eternal hearth which is called the Holy Trinity. It is the fire of truth from which pours the warmth of love and the fervor of love. It is the fire by which a Christian burns but remains unconsumed, just like the burning bush that Moses beheld in the desert that burned but remained unconsumed. It is the fire which the prophet Jeremiah felt in his bones, which compellingly drove him to proclaim God’s truth. It is the fire that came down upon the Apostles in the form of fiery tongues when the Holy Spirit was sent into the world from the risen Christ. It is the fire which enlightened and illumined the simple fishermen and made them the greatest and wisest of men. It is the fire that shown on the face of the archdeacon stephen at the time of his martyrdom and made his appearance like that of an angel of God. It is the spiritual fire of truth and love by which the apostles and missionaries have regenerated the world, reviving the corpse of a Godless humanity; cleansing it, enlightening it, and illumining it. Everything in this world that has any good to it, is of that Heavenly fire, which the Lord came to cast upon the earth. This is the Heavenly fire by which the soul is purified, just as gold is purified with earthly fire. By the light of that fire, we know the Way. We find out where we are, and where we are going; we know our Heavenly Father, and our eternal fatherland. By that divine fire, our heart is warmed with the unspeakable love for Christ, just like the two apostles on the road when they felt and described “Did not our hearts burn within us while he spoke to us, and he opened to us the scriptures on the way.” That fire moved Christ himself, to come down to earth from heaven, and moves us to rise up from earth to heaven. We all were baptized by that Holy fire according to Saint John the Baptist’s words when he said “I baptize you with water for repentance, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” That fire, creates an indescribable zeal for every good in one’s heart. That fire gladdens the righteous and torments the sinners. **It also torments us often, until we are completely cleansed of every unrighteousness, injustice, and impurity. **For it is written, “Our God is a consuming fire.” Peace and Joy of the Lord be with you.
Saint Nikolai responded with the following:
We often speak of the fire of envy, the fire of hatred, the fire of lust, the fire of every vicious passion. Of course such fire was not brought to the earth by Christ, the King of Glory and Truth. Far from it, that impure, unclean fire comes from the whirlwinds of hell which splashes over the whole earth. But Christ brought that Holy fire with which He has been burning and glowing from eternity to eternity. That is the fire of truth, and of love. A pure fire, a divine fire, from the eternal hearth which is called the Holy Trinity. It is the fire of truth from which pours the warmth of love and the fervor of love. It is the fire by which a Christian burns but remains unconsumed, just like the burning bush that Moses beheld in the desert that burned but remained unconsumed. It is the fire which the prophet Jeremiah felt in his bones, which compellingly drove him to proclaim God’s truth. It is the fire that came down upon the Apostles in the form of fiery tongues when the Holy Spirit was sent into the world from the risen Christ. It is the fire which enlightened and illumined the simple fishermen and made them the greatest and wisest of men. It is the fire that shown on the face of the archdeacon stephen at the time of his martyrdom and made his appearance like that of an angel of God. It is the spiritual fire of truth and love by which the apostles and missionaries have regenerated the world, reviving the corpse of a Godless humanity; cleansing it, enlightening it, and illumining it. Everything in this world that has any good to it, is of that Heavenly fire, which the Lord came to cast upon the earth. This is the Heavenly fire by which the soul is purified, just as gold is purified with earthly fire. By the light of that fire, we know the Way. We find out where we are, and where we are going; we know our Heavenly Father, and our eternal fatherland. By that divine fire, our heart is warmed with the unspeakable love for Christ, just like the two apostles on the road when they felt and described “Did not our hearts burn within us while he spoke to us, and he opened to us the scriptures on the way.” That fire moved Christ himself, to come down to earth from heaven, and moves us to rise up from earth to heaven. We all were baptized by that Holy fire according to Saint John the Baptist’s words when he said “I baptize you with water for repentance, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” That fire, creates an indescribable zeal for every good in one’s heart. That fire gladdens the righteous and torments the sinners. **It also torments us often, until we are completely cleansed of every unrighteousness, injustice, and impurity. **For it is written, “Our God is a consuming fire.” Peace and Joy of the Lord be with you.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Perhaps. However, it is the doctrines of the Roman Pontiff that matters, not the opinion of Eparchs, as it is the Roman Pontiff that sits in the chair of Peter, the source of sacerdotal unity.
Wonderful! This must surely include, then, the understanding articulated by the 7th century theologian, St. Maximus of Constantinople, who taught: "“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light”. (St. Maximus).
If only there was a universal Catechism of the Catholic Church which might help dispel all the differences of opinion regarding Catholic doctrine, and articulate that which is doctrine of the universal Church. Wait…I think there is such a Catechism! John Paul II promulgated the Catechism responding to the needs of “the universal Church and of the particular Churches” (John Paul II, Fidei Depostium).
John Paul II wrote:
According to, Cardinal Ratzinger:
, (Ignatius Press, 1997), pg. 20].
“The bishops present at the 1985 Synod called for a universal catechism of the whole Church…this is the purpose of the Catechism.” (idib., pg. 24)
So, since you surely agree with St. Maximus as quoted above, you must also therefore assent to the universal Catechism promulgated as a sure norm of Catholic teaching and faith by the Roman Pontiff to the universal Church.
C
ciero
Guest
stick it Dave…
F
Formosus
Guest
Itsjustdave,
I think its important to take Maximos’ comments in the context of his times. Its easy to just selectively quote what we want to without understanding what he was trying to say. As I am not an expert on St. Maximos, I do not pretend to be able to do such a thing. I can say though, that the Filioque that Maximos defended is not the Filioque that the Roman Church teaches now. Early on, Rome defended the use of the Filioque on the point that it described the mission received by the Holy Spirit from the Son but that the origin of the Spirit’s Hypostatsis was in the Father alone. Later during the High Middle Ages, Rome instead claimed the opposite. Its important to recognize that the Roman position on the Filioque has been constantly changing and evolving based on the political and theological circumstances of the times. Initially, Pope Leo III rejected the addition of the Fillioque and enshrined the original creed in silver tablets in the Vatican and Pope Leo VIII similarly rejected the use of the Filioque in the creed. It did not become a permanent fixture in the creed until the 11th century.
I think its important to take Maximos’ comments in the context of his times. Its easy to just selectively quote what we want to without understanding what he was trying to say. As I am not an expert on St. Maximos, I do not pretend to be able to do such a thing. I can say though, that the Filioque that Maximos defended is not the Filioque that the Roman Church teaches now. Early on, Rome defended the use of the Filioque on the point that it described the mission received by the Holy Spirit from the Son but that the origin of the Spirit’s Hypostatsis was in the Father alone. Later during the High Middle Ages, Rome instead claimed the opposite. Its important to recognize that the Roman position on the Filioque has been constantly changing and evolving based on the political and theological circumstances of the times. Initially, Pope Leo III rejected the addition of the Fillioque and enshrined the original creed in silver tablets in the Vatican and Pope Leo VIII similarly rejected the use of the Filioque in the creed. It did not become a permanent fixture in the creed until the 11th century.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
With regard to whether Eastern Catholics are equally obliged to accept all the doctrines and dogmas of the magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith published new formulas for the *Professio Fidei *[AAS 81 [1989], 104-106]. This was also promulgated by John Paul II by Apostolic Letter Ad tuendam fidem, which revised the codes of canon law in accordance with the revised Professio Fidei.
In addition to the creed, Professio Fidei contains these three propositions:
The original post highlighted, for instance, “papal infallibility” as something he thought he did not need to assent to, although claiming to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff. However, according to canon 597 of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO):
In addition to the creed, Professio Fidei contains these three propositions:
It is perfectly acceptable to explain these same doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Pontiff in accordance with Eastern theology and terms, but in so doing, Eastern Catholics in communion with the Roman Pontiff cannot dissent with the magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.
The original post highlighted, for instance, “papal infallibility” as something he thought he did not need to assent to, although claiming to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff. However, according to canon 597 of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO):
Canon 598 and 599 of the same CCEO states:
I don’t see how any Eastern Catholic can conclude that they are not required to assent to the dogma of Papal Infallibility, or any other doctrine or dogma of the Supreme Pontiff yet still claim to have unity with the Roman Pontiff.
C
ciero
Guest
When are we silly Easterners going to learn…the only way to be Catholic is to be ROMAN CATHOLIC…we are just a bit slow I guess.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I’ve read many of St. Maximus works, not simply excerpts. He does indeed defend the filioque which was taught by the Latins. As he was one of few experts in both Greek and Latin, he knew what he was talking about. I don’t agree that what filioque means today differs from what it meant in St. Maximus’ day. If you read his defense, this becomes clear.
Even Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware admits “"the [filioque controversy] is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Speech to a symposium on the Trinity; Rose Hill College, Aiken, South Carolina).
Likewise, just as St. Maximus argued in the 7th century, Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland, in a letter to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 30 October 2000, stated (apart from the continuing issue of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff):
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You need to stop your selective reading of other’s replies.When are we silly Easterners going to learn…the only way to be Catholic is to be ROMAN CATHOLIC…we are just a bit slow I guess.
Dave did say;
And he is correct in this statement. If an Eastern Catholic dissents on any Catholic Dogma then he is not a Catholic. Why stay in such a state when you can just be Orthodox and have the same beliefs?
While there is the Zoghby Initiative, it was rejected by both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Dave,
As a Byzantine Catholic I wish to express my apologizes for this uncalled for out right rude behavior.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
***Closed pending mod review. ***
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Your first point is not quite accurate. The Roman Pontiff’s teachings are not binding on all Catholics because 1) not all of his teachings, even public teachings, are infallible, 2) when he is exercising the “ordinary Magisterium” he is teaching as head of the Roman Church, not the Universal Church. The members of other particular Churches look to the heads of their respective Churches for teaching, the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, etc.
The Pope of Rome is not the only bishop who sits on a chair of Peter. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria are equally successors of Peter.
Your quotes from St. Maximus are duly noted, but I wonder at the interpretation, which seems very anachronistic. We must remember that at the time St. Maximus was writing the Church of Rome was the only Church that hadn’t gotten tangled up in the rampant theological speculations that were going on on the East. As Kyr Zoghby pointed out, all of the formative dogmatic declarations for the Church, East and West, came out of controversies that arose in the East and the Councils that were formed to respond to those controversies. Rome was hardly involved in the process because the controversies were simply not raging there. From where I sit the tables seem to have turned and the controversies are raging primarily in the West, while the East is hardly affected. One could make the argument that Rome needs to look East in order to gain a firm root in orthodoxy once again.
Please do not be condescending with regards to the CCC. I have read it cover to cover and am continually picking it up to reference on all sorts of matters. That being said, however, it is not a Universal Catechism. It is a Roman Catechism promulgated by Roman bishops for the Roman Church. Simply because one Pope has stated that it is Universal does not make it so. That being said, I do love the Catechism and I think there is a great deal that both Catholics and Orthodox can learn from it.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
Maximus was only a monk, not a bishop, not even a priest. That makes his opinion not much better than even mine! Now let’s hear from the Pope of Old Rome, Saint Gregory:
"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair.
"And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me.
"For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17.
“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one . For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside.”
Source: newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm
Like St. Pope Gregory of ancient Western Christianity, I’m convinced of the above teaching regarding the equal primacy of the three bishops of St. Peter, which is why I’m Orthodox.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
This is where I am at.And…a rejection of the need to dogmatize every teeny tiny little aspect of the faith.
I have seen many of the declared “dogmas” to be about things that the Eastern faithful have always believed in.Thus these only became “dogmas” when heretics have changed or watered the original beliefs down so much that the CHURCH has had to use this manner to bring the people back into full truth.
The Eastern Churches do not have many of the problems of the West. Change is not something easily accepted, for good or bad
. The parishes are normally small enough to know each other. The social structure is multi generational no compartmentalized by age. The priests are involved in our lives and our children’s lives.Traditions are passed down from generation to generation. This gives a feeling of belonging and the roots that I find missing in the Roman parishes.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
That’s not correct. Canon law for the Eastern Catholics is the same as canon law for the Roman Catholics, according to CCEO canon 599 which states:
This pertains to the universal ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.
Not according to the Roman Pontiff who promulgated it, nor according to the current Roman Pontiff who led the effort in developing it, working with Eastern bishops in doing so.
- Status