Byzantines and Plenary indulgence

[johnnykins]

The Trinity was dealt with by Ecumenical councils of an undivided Church.
Councils were usually invoked to counter heretical factions.

No doubt to both issues (though the Copts and Armenians might dispute that post-Chalcedon) - however they were not qualifiers to your statements.

So I presume you do believe there are good reasons from time to time to attempt to define a mystery thereby taking away from the mystery. Does this mean you’re OK with such definitions when the applicable Church authorities believe it prudent or necessary for the good of the faithful? Say, post-Reformation or some such?

Just trying to clarify your thinking.

 

[Mickey]

No doubt to both issues (though the Copts and Armenians might dispute that post-Chalcedon) - however they were not qualifiers to your statements.

So I presume you do believe there are good reasons from time to time to attempt to define a mystery thereby taking away from the mystery. Does this mean you’re OK with such definitions when the applicable Church authorities believe it prudent or necessary for the good of the faithful? Say, post-Reformation or some such?

Just trying to clarify your thinking.

I copied a response I made on this subject from another forum:

The Trinity is all throughout Scripture from the hospitality of Abraham–to the baptism of Jesus Christ in the Jordan–to the Transfiguration. The councils countered many heresies when the Church was undivided and the Orthodox adhere to the first seven Ecumenical councils. But I see nothing in Sacred Scripture that details the scientific, legalistic, scholastic definition of the word “transubstantiation”. Jesus Christ said “This is My Body—This is My Blood”. We take Him at His word and do not concern ourselves with how it happens.

But I am aware that the Roman Catholic Church felt compelled to define many things against the attacks that came from the reformation.

Peace

I am gone for a few days. Have a blessed weekend.

 

[johnnykins]

I copied a response I made on this subject from another forum:

The Trinity is all throughout Scripture from the hospitality of Abraham–to the baptism of Jesus Christ in the Jordan–to the Transfiguration. The councils countered many heresies when the Church was undivided and the Orthodox adhere to the first seven Ecumenical councils. But I see nothing in Sacred Scripture that details the scientific, legalistic, scholastic definition of the word “transubstantiation”. Jesus Christ said “This is My Body—This is My Blood”. We take Him at His word and do not concern ourselves with how it happens.

While the concept of the Trinity is, I agree, throughout scripture, you will not find the word “consubstantial” “homousia” detailed in any specific manner only the general conceptof the Trinity with precious little, if any, explanation of what or how the Trinity exists. That, of course, is precisely why so many Bishops accepted Arianism. Until Arius there was no need to get into the nature of the relationship within the Godhead.

Perhaps the east was lucky that the heresies that the west faced rejecting the True Presence starting about the 12th/13th century (the height of scholasticism) didn’t travel east. The west responded in the theological language and philosophical language prevalent in the west at that time. You may not like scholasticism, but as a philosophy it is useful just as any of the eastern philosophies are useful - of course it’s limited, too, just like any other philosophies. Apophatic/Kataphatic - both churches respond as needed. As did the ancient united church.

BTW I’ve never been convinced that transubstantiation as defined by the scholastics does any more than describe the happening - and not the how. You still appear to have bread and wine, but it ain’t.

But I am aware that the Roman Catholic Church felt compelled to define many things against the attacks that came from the reformation.

Peace

I am gone for a few days. Have a blessed weekend.

Have a grreat long weekend.

Pax te cum

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

You know quite well that I am somewhat versed in Palamite theology and apophaticism. What is your point? Hesychasm can be traced back at least as far as St Maximos the Confessor. It is a theological school of teaching.

I’m talking about the distinction between Essence and Energies, and I specified that already.

Now if Rome did not declare purgatory to be doctrine, you and I would not be having this conversation. One wonders why they did not leave the “doctrine” of purgatory on the same plane as limbo.

Yeah, it should have remained that way, but the Greeks were going around dogmatically condemning what should have been regarded as a Latin Tradition confined to them. It was really the Greeks that provided the impetus for the definition, so it’s rather hypocritical for EO in general to use this line of argumentation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It is not doctrine.

The distinction between Essence and Energies IS doctrine. In fact, judging by the way many Easterns condemn the Latins for not having that distinction in their Tradition, I’d say it was downright dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Speaking as an Oriental Christian, Eastern Orthodoxy is also guilty of dogmatism and over-definition. To be frank, this is another example of the hypocrisy that is so blatant in Eastern Orthodox anti-Catholic polemic (remember, I’m not assigning hypocrisy to Eastern Orthodoxy per se, but to the anti-Catholic polemics of the Eastern Orthodox).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I dunno marduk. You say it is misunderstanding. You see strong similarity and analogy. You see cows and horses.

I see major problems with the doctrine of purgatory. I sensed major problems with this doctrine before I even knew of the existence of the Orthodox Church (or the Eastern Catholic Church for that matter).

So you see–I cannot relate to this relatively new doctrine.

But hey–that’s just me.

One of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time, though not Catholic, actually accepted Purgatory as a most sensible and righteous outgrowth of Christian soteriology. There are elements of Purgatory everywhere in the Fathers, and in the theologies of the Oriental and Eastern Churches. It is simply that Purgatory lays a greater stress on certain aspects of the Church’s universal teaching on the matter of a third state besides heaven and hell where souls are still being perfected. The difference in emphases on particular points is what distinguishes the different Traditions, but it there is a shared Tradition in the matter nevertheless.

Eastern Orthodoxy can never be Catholic until it realizes that the TRUTH is not confined to the terminologies and Traditions of the East,

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

How much easier it would be today if only the Scriptures had told us in no uncertain terms that there is a third place!

A holding tank!

Abraham’s bosom and Hades (the abode of the dead) are pretty solid Scriptural doctrines, and these places are neither heaven nor hell.

Of course, there is also the sea of glass as though made of fire in front of the heavenly throne.

We also know in no uncertain terms that there is a period when what is impure in us will be burned away as gold refined in fire.

These are pretty clear scriptural passages for a third state, that is, neither eternal bliss nor eternal damnation. Rationalize them away as you will. The truth will not change.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

That was uncalled for. I do not insult you, there is no need to insult me.

Please show a bit of charity.

Forgive me if you perceived that as an insult. In fact, I am Orthodox in communion with Rome and am rather comfortable with the paradoxy of Orthodoxy. I often joke around about this with my Latin friends. I am rather surprised that I cannot joke around about it with a fellow non-Latin.

Once again, I’m sorry.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ASimpleSinner]

or it could be the case that it is a place.
One wonders if you ever get weary of repeating this tired polemic.
More personal experiences and anecdotes by ASimpleSinner. :bounce:
You are pretty good at offering rejoiners for the Orthodox.
Oh my. Twice in one post this time!

At the risk of exposing my secret alter-ego (Captain Obvious) just a few observations…

You manage to do nothing in this post but get in a last word…

I will get tired of repeating that “tired of polemic” when I no longer have to. When the issue quits being side-stepped and actually gets addressed (something not done here) I guess we can move on. I haven’t had the pleasure of going through your 6K+ posts to see if you in turn have any recurring leit motivs…

Really though, your charge of it being a polemic actually is odd to me. I guess it goes to show there is some truth to what my pappa used to say “It all depends whose ox is being gored.”

So for a third time and for good measure, except to offer one’s speculation or personal reading of the Fathers can a definitive teaching of contradistinction vis. Purgatory be offered by the autocephalous polyarchy that is the communion of individual Orthodox churches?

So far, emoticons and barbs aside, the answer seems to be no. At best you can offer you personally don’t agree, and you and your bishops personally read the Fathers and interpret the councils you accept otherwise. But that personal reading is neither binding nor necessarily self evident. On that last point, enter the schools of thought up to and including the Kieven Baroque period where numerous canonical hierarchs and theologians implicitly and explicitly reaffirmed Roman schools of thought on this and many other matters.

 

[Mickey]

The distinction between Essence and Energies IS doctrine.

Prove it.

 

[Mickey]

One of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time, though not Catholic, actually accepted Purgatory as a most sensible and righteous outgrowth of Christian soteriology.

I suppose that depends on your Eisogesis.

Eastern Orthodoxy can never be Catholic

They have never stopped being Catholic my friend.

 

[East_and_West]

Prove it.

Do you believe that the essence and energies distinction is necessary?

 

[Mickey]

Abraham’s bosom and Hades (the abode of the dead) are pretty solid Scriptural doctrines, and these places are neither heaven nor hell.

Of course, there is also the sea of glass as though made of fire in front of the heavenly throne.

We also know in no uncertain terms that there is a period when what is impure in us will be burned away as gold refined in fire.

These are pretty clear scriptural passages for a third state, that is, neither eternal bliss nor eternal damnation. Rationalize them away as you will. The truth will not change.

More Eisogesis. This is not proof of purgatory.

 

[Mickey]

So far, emoticons and barbs aside, the answer seems to be no. At best you can offer you personally don’t agree, and you and your bishops personally read the Fathers and interpret the councils you accept otherwise. But that personal reading is neither binding nor necessarily self evident. On that last point, enter the schools of thought up to and including the Kieven Baroque period where numerous canonical hierarchs and theologians implicitly and explicitly reaffirmed Roman schools of thought on this and many other matters.

Yes. It is fruitless to have discussion with you. We are diametrically opposed on every issue. I agree wui literally nothing that you post.

Good day.

 

[ematouk]

Do you believe that the essence and energies distinction is necessary?

As an Orthodox, I like the teaching of the distinction between essence and energies, but I would not hold it binding on every believer. If a believer chose to use another distinction such as that used in the west between “essence and being” or if they didn’t understand the issue and thought to use no distinction at all, I would not accuse them of heresy or forbid communion. I hardly think it is rebuttling a heresy concerning Christ or the economy of salvation and I do not think it affects our salvation if we think otherwise.

But I can safely say I am a Hesychast believer.

God bless.

 

[mardukm]

Prove it.

Easily

Do you believe it as distinct from other theological beliefs?

Doctrine - root word “dokein” - to believe or think.

Sophistry in Eastern Orthodox apologetic thought seems pretty common. I’m not yet certain if it is part and parcel of Eastern Orthodoxy itself, or if it is simply something lacking in her lay apologetics.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I suppose that depends on your Eisogesis.

No. It depends on your Tradition, not your eisegesis. This answer simply demonstrates once again, the un-Catholicity of Eastern Orthodoxy, I’m afraid. Eastern Orthodoxy is not universal - it is Greek and is imprisoned in Greek thought. All other theological Traditions in Eastern Orthodoxy is to be looked down upon.

They have never stopped being Catholic my friend.

I used to believe this. I have only stopped believing it within the past year. As noted, Eastern Orthodoxy is Greek, and it is only that. It is parochial, not universal. This is why it generally has not learned to be accepting of Western or Oriental theological terminologies and thoughts. It is trapped within itself, refusing to see common ground, instead asserting that its theological expressions are the be-all and end-all of what the Faith is. Meditate on the scriptural exhortation in my signature line below, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

More Eisogesis. This is not proof of purgatory.

More sophistry, brother. You did not ask for proof of Purgatory. You asked for proof of a third state, and that is already a big chunk of the proof required for Purgatory.

And unless you can assert that our common Faith needed no definition as time progressed, I stand firm that the development of Latin theological thought on the matter is scriptural and patristic, Though I personally do not fully accept all that the Latin Church believes locally about Purgatory, I can see it has scriptural and patristic bases, and thus can comfortably call Latin Catholics brethren in the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

BTW I’ve never been convinced that transubstantiation as defined by the scholastics does any more than describe the happening - and not the how. You still appear to have bread and wine, but it ain’t.

Amen and Amen, brother!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ematouk]

Easily

Do you believe it as distinct from other theological beliefs?

Doctrine - root word “dokein” - to believe or think.

Sophistry in Eastern Orthodox apologetic thought seems pretty common. I’m not yet certain if it is part and parcel of Eastern Orthodoxy itself, or if it is simply something lacking in her lay apologetics.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

You argue as though you have something to prove. You even accuse the orthodox of deceptive invalid arguments with the hope of decieving people (Sophistry).

Rather then attack our beliefs you do the thing that you accuse us of - Sophistry. You use ad hominem attacks rather then addressing the issues of dispute (and since your latin should be excellent being a Catholic you should know what *ad hominem *means).

No Orthodox Council condemns Purgatory, but I as an individual Orthodox reject it in favour of mystery. Can mystery be erronious? If so then you charge St Paul with heresy when he says “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” (Romans 11:33). And again “This is a profound mystery” (Ephesians 5:32). And again “pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains” (Colossians 4:3).

I accept the 2 dogmas of purgatory and I after reading the post by the person who spoke about the 2 dogmas of indulgences - I am willing to accept that too. But does a Catholic need to believe these indulgences can be applied after death? I believe they can only be applied on Earth.

BTW, If you want to be polemical Marduk. If I recall Eastern influence has had a profound effect on the Catholic church. The influence of Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh prevented the dogmatising of limbo at the Vatican 2. Also recently Catholics have began to adopt parts of Eastern Orthodox understandings of “Eucharistic ecclesiology” in favour of the current doctrine of “Universal ecclesiology”. Pope Benedict even wrote a statement on eucharistic ecclesiology from memory in 2003.

As an Eastern Catholic, you should thank the Eastern Orthodox. Without us the role of the Patriarch would not have been gradually restored to its more ancient position in the Catholic church under the past 2 popes.

Be thankful for our discussions with the Catholics, for without them, there is no doubt there would be another East-West schism directly after communion.

We are working to restore the ecclesiology of the bible, rather then the absolute submission to Rome that was preached in the past.

As a convert to Orthodoxy, I can safely say your aggressive polemics only work harm to yourself and to others with no firm basis. An honest discussion of doctrine is what this forum is for, rather then aggressive polemics which cause injustified condemnation.

May God bless us and help us work towards unity.