Calling All Orthodox!

[josie_L]

Its like the symbolic gesture of the bread and wine.

:bigyikes:

 

[josie_L]

Yes, another one of those old tales. the Italians in the Latin Church still add dollar bills to the caskets at the wake for the Tolls on the way.

I’m Italian (on both sides), and I’ve never seen that done before (the Jews used to put coins on the eyes of the deceased).

 

[josie_L]

And baptism.

One for the Father , one for the Son , and one for the Holy Ghost

 

[Nacho45]

If it was a symbolic gesture than the excommunication remains!

Yes, indeed. I have a hard time accepting the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch would play politics with this sort of thing. I am certain they would not.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, indeed. I have a hard time accepting the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch would play politics with this sort of thing. I am certain they would not.

It could be argued to be symbolic in the sense that it did not reestablish communion or otherwise change the status of EO-RC relations beyond declaring the specific excommunications leveled by the Latins against the Byzantines and vice-versa in 1054 to be void. I think a lot of such gestures are often misinterpreted by the RC because you guys tend to approach things like lawyers in thinking that this or that establishes a precedent that should hold for all future interactions (the whole “look at my agreed statements” syndrome), whereas for the Orthodox these things are very much small steps toward rapproachement in the spirit of Christian love and brotherliness, dependent upon the context in which they were drawn up, etc., but not binding in any kind of dogmatic or ecclesiological sense.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Lifting excommunication is a symbolic gesture?

Who knew?

Yes, because the only ones excommunicated by the 1054 excommunications were a few prelates (Michael Cerularius and the Papal legates). The excommunications themselves did not cause the schism or even directly lead to it, and thus rescinding them was merely a symbolic gesture, which did not change the official relationship between the Roman Church and Orthodoxy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And that was rejected by the Church unfortunate Cyprian didn’t comprehend the dialogue with the Pope.

It is a wildly incorrect and even slightly presumptuous statement to say that St. Cyprian’s position was ‘rejected by the Church.’ It was rejected in the West, yes, but one finds a whole slew of Eastern fathers and canons which continued to reject heretical baptisms except out of economy, far after the time when Pope St. Stephen’s views gained acceptance in the West.

There is no re-baptism.

Indeed, because from our perspective, those baptized outside of the Church are in need either of baptism or at the very least, having their formerly inefficacious baptism perfected by the grace of the Church.

And Firmillian was right, those who are not is communion with the Pope are “Outside the Church”.

St. Firmillian taught no such thing. Quite the contrary, he accused Pope St. Stephen of having cut himself off from the Church during his dispute with St. Cyprian.

There is no dogma on purgatory. In fact there is one paragraph in the CCC on it. You guys know better about the Toll Booths.

The Toll Booths are “unacceptable” .

I fail to see what the patristic doctrine of the aerial toll houses (something which is meant to be understood metaphorically) has to do with anything.

 

[Cavaradossi]

First, the catechism of the CC defines purgatory as such:

It is not punishment that the catechism refers to but purification

Yes, but the medieval teaching on Purgatory rather clearly linked it to fulfilling a certain temporal punishment due for sins. The modern emphasis on a therapeutic understanding of purgatory introduces some rather interesting questions about the practice of applying indulgences to the dead per modum suffragii. If purgatory should be understood as therapeutic in nature, even if it be painful, why should it at all desirable to cut short the time spent there by the dead by applying a plenary or partial indulgence to them? And if it truly is possible for the dead to be healed instantaneously, (as the existence of the plenary indulgence implies) why should it be necessary for a merciful God to subject them to this painful process of purgation, when the means exist to cleanse them instantaneously? It seems to me still that the retributive model of purgatory is implied by the practice of the Roman Church on this matter.

however, it is interesting to note that when one’s sins are forgiven penance is administered by the priest be he Orthodox or Catholic:

Why should there be ANY penance for sins forgiven, and if you accept penance for sins forgiven in the here and now, why is it inconceivable to believe we do “penance” in purgatory if it leads to purification?

Penances are given according to Trullo (though I am aware that the West denies the authority of this council) for the benefit and healing of the penitent, which is why the confessor is invested with the power of oikonomia to adjust the severity of the penance according to the needs of the penitent. They do not exist in order to punish sins which have just been forgiven by confession. This is why, for example, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain in his exomologetarion instructs the confessor to assign the penance according to the most grave sin committed. Were the intention of the penance to fulfill a necessary temporal punishment for sins forgiven, it should make sense instead that the penance would instead be cumulative.

p.s. Fire is utilized in scripture as a means of purification and/or as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, i.e., baptism of fire. Nothing wrong per se with believing that we are cleansed by fire.

There is nothing wrong with fire as a symbol in these contexts. The Greek objection at Florence was to the notion of a punishing fire which is not the fire of eternal punishment. It seems to be non-issue these days, because the Latins never dogmatized the idea of purgatorial fire as a true punishing fire, and these days Western theologians seem to teach that purgatorial fire is meant symbolically. I simply brought that objection up to be historically thorough.

 

[GaryTaylor]

but one finds a whole slew of Eastern fathers and canons which continued to reject heretical baptisms except out of economy, far after the time when Pope St. Stephen’s views gained acceptance in the West…

Who continued in communion with the Church through till the 1054 schism and continued with documented re-baptism?

because from our perspective, those baptized outside of the Church

Yes I understand we have two perspectives.

St. Firmillian taught no such thing. Quite the contrary, he accused Pope St. Stephen of having cut himself off from the Church during his dispute with St. Cyprian…

Implicitly he did in the letters to Cyprian Cav, its on the other thread the Keys.

I fail to see what the patristic doctrine of the aerial toll houses (something which is meant to be understood metaphorically) has to do with anything.

I don’t see what either fire or toll booths have to do with the particular or general judgement but for the fact to indicate the further process of divinization which we have to admit we do not know if that’s with the communion of Saints.

Cyprian and Stephan. Not hard to see where Cyprian thought what he did. The problem is it can’t be stated he understood Stephan. I can’t understand what Stephan is saying from the remaining fragments. All this occurred in 2-years.

 

[GaryTaylor]

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

"As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

'Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble - each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." [1 Cor 3:12-15]

I don’t see the dogma or the argument.

I do see a issue with that binding and loosing those excommunications though.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

The better question is how this works with the particular and general judgment which once upon a time the EO use to profess.

Where?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Where?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment

Eastern Orthodoxy

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that there are two judgments: the first, or “Particular” Judgment, is that experienced by each individual at the time of his or her death, at which time God will decide where[4] the soul is to spend the time until the Second Coming of Christ (see Hades in Christianity). This judgment is generally believed to occur on the fortieth day after death. The second, “General” or “Final” Judgment will occur after the Second Coming.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment

Eastern Orthodoxy

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that there are two judgments: the first, or “Particular” Judgment, is that experienced by each individual at the time of his or her death, at which time God will decide where[4] the soul is to spend the time until the Second Coming of Christ (see Hades in Christianity). This judgment is generally believed to occur on the fortieth day after death. The second, “General” or “Final” Judgment will occur after the Second Coming.

Yes, but we don’t consider that Purgatory. We consider it a mystery. We don’t pray people out of length of time…time doesn’t exactly exist from my understanding.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, but we don’t consider that Purgatory.

What do you consider it? It is what it is regardless of the name we choose to give it.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

What do you consider it? It is what it is regardless of the name we choose to give it.

Edited…read above your post. It’s a mystery. RC purgatory is more similar to the tollhouse view, which the EO doesn’t except, though a few individuals buy into it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, but we don’t consider that Purgatory.

That’s the argument I fail to see, there is no dogma, purgatory simply means purification which is affirmed by both Church’s. Comes back to the what is indeed acknowledged, particular and general judgment.

Which comes back to the original question. “how this works with the particular and general judgment?”

 

[SteveVH]

Edited…read above your post. It’s a mystery. RC purgatory is more similar to the tollhouse view, which the EO doesn’t except, though a few individuals buy into it.

But I think we would agree that it is a mystery. There has never been a definitive statement concerning the nature of purgatory, as if we understand exactly what happens there. We know we will be purified and that we will reach our final destiny, that’s about it. I have never understood why this is an issue that should separate us. It seems we agree that something takes place between our death and our entrance into heaven; that there is another state of being other than heaven or hell.

 

[fhansen]

But I think we would agree that it is a mystery. There has never been a definitive statement concerning the nature of purgatory, as if we understand exactly what happens there. We know we will be purified and that we will reach our final destiny, that’s about it. I have never understood why this is an issue that should separate us. It seems we agree that something takes place between our death and our entrance into heaven; that there is another state of being other than heaven or hell.

Yes, and few outside the ancient Churches accept this teaching in any form whatsoever.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

That’s the argument I fail to see, there is no dogma, **purgatory simply means purification which is affirmed by both Church’s. ** Comes back to the what is indeed acknowledged, particular and general judgment.

Which comes back to the original question. “how this works with the particular and general judgment?”

More the issue may be in the views of what and how.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism:

Orthodox view of Sin and Salvation:
Sin is an unnatural state of man, brought about by the distortion of God’s original creation. After the Fall of Adam, all men became subject to an ancestral curse and were made subject to death. it is the goal of human life not to sin, and to be restored to our original “god-likeness.” But, in fact, all people do sin. it is only possible to be freed from sin by the saving work of Christ, who forgives the sins of the world through His abundant mercy. By His Resurrection, Christ defeated our ultimate enemy, death. Salvation is a lifelong process, involving active cooperation with the work of Christ. There is an intermediate state of the soul between death and the final day of judgment, during which souls benefit from the prayers of the faithful.

Roman Catholic view of Sin and Salvation:
According to the Roman understanding of “original sin,” a stain of inherited guilt is passed down from Adam, as a result of his sin, to the rest of the human race. Even after a sinful action is forgiven, there sometimes remains a temporal punishment due to that sin which must be expiated. Those who die with their sin forgiven by not expiated, must spend time after death in purgation (purgatory). Infinite merits earned by Christ and the saints can be passed on to another individual by the Church through “indulgences.”

We know prayers benefit them (not how or why)…we do not attempt to claim more about the mystery since that is exactly what it is…a mystery. Also, our view is different as we don’t hold to the view of Original Sin. We do not believe in indulgences, limiting time in, etc.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, and few outside the ancient Churches accept this teaching in any form whatsoever.

True, but irrelevant. Do you see this as an issue on which the EO and CC should be divided? That is the mystery to me.