Can Catholic confess to Orthodox priests?

[aspirant]

Purgatory, which is defined as a temporal fire by the Catholic Church at the Council of Florence.

As has been pointed out more than once on this thread, this is false.

 

[Cecilianus]

Most Orthodox do not reject it as gnostic, the proper understanding is completely different from Purgatory, which is defined as a temporal fire by the Catholic Church at the Council of Florence. It is this dogma that the Orthodox reject.

Then what is it, eternal fire?

Nobody’s claiming that it’s physical combustion, so I don’t understand what you’re objecting to.

Regarding gnosticism, read “The Toll-House Myth: The Neo-Gnosticism of Fr. Seraphim Rose”, by Fr. Michael Azkoul, published by St. Nectarios Press.

 

[Cecilianus]

Read the life of St. Mark of Ephesus.

He wasn’t persecuted in any way.

 

[Cecilianus]

"“It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” - St. Cyprian, 7th Council of Carthage

Nor does the Pope emply “tyrannical terror.” But all the Patriarchs of the Church have exercised jurisdiction over other bishops, up to the present day.

I find it rather funny that you suddenly accept the authority of St. Cyprian of Carthage, who asserted in his book “On the Unity of the Catholic Church” that people in schism from the see of Rome don’t even possess valid sacraments. For the sake of intellectual honesty, you should see what he says there. (If you truly believe your position to be true, then you have nothing to lose by reading it.)

From the Britannica Concice Encyclopedia:

“In disputes with the bishop of Rome, Cyprian asserted that the people and their bishop constituted the church, that there was no “bishop of bishops” in Rome, that all bishops equally possessed the Holy Spirit, and that their consensus expressed the church’s unity.”

A Protestant commentary, not an authoritative source. My understanding of St. Cyprian comes from actually reading him directly.

 

[Cecilianus]

Forgive me, I meant to write "He retains his rights and honor because the Church has given it to him.

Chalcedon (451), c.28

FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome"****

You are not being quite honest by quoting this as the decision of Chalcedon, because it was explicitly rejected and declared null and void by the Pope. It consequently has no authority, according to the ancient custom of all ecumenical councils, as explained by St. Theodore Studites in a letter to Pope Leo III. Any councils held without the Pope’s authority are “heretical”, and “they cannot even hold an orthodox one without your knowledge”.

As a side note, let me point out that Chalcedon was where the bishops gave the acclaim “Peter has spoken through Leo *” at the close of the second session, indicating their belief in specifically Papal succession from St. Peter - so it doesn’t appear that they intended by canon 28 to remove the Pope’s authority as “Sovereign Pontiff, the Bishop of Bishops” (to give him the title Tertullian used in the “De Pudicitia”), but merely to give the bishop of Constantinople a primacy of honor next to him.

The “blessed Pope of the holy Roman church - that is, the Apostolic See” still has, according to St. Maximos the Confessor, “government, authority, and power to bind and to loose over all the churches that are in the world, in all things and in every way.”

And, regardless of canon 28, it would still be “a matter of necessity that every Church agree with this Church [the Roman] on account of its pre-eminent authority,” to use the words of St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century A.D.*

 

[Cecilianus]

This is not the Traditional Roman Rite of the sacred sacrament of confession. Like all things traditionally Roman Catholic, it has been demeaned, expurgated and relegated to obscurity. The Novus Ordo church is just simply not the church I was raised in. It is a far cry from the liturgy of all ages. A Protestant ethos infects Catholic worship in the post Vatican Council church.

Nor is it the religion I practice. I honestly do not see myself as being in any sort of honest unity of faith with the “praise & worship”-style “Catholics”.

 

[Cecilianus]

He is a first in honor among equals. He retains his rights and honor because the Church has given it to him.

Yes, he is the first among equals. Ontologically, every bishop is an equal - there is no indelible mark in your soul when you become Pope. Although, I don’t think I’ve ever read the term “first among equals” in any of the ecumenical councils, or Scripture, or the Church Fathers, or anywhere for that matter.

So… when did the Church give him his “rights and honor”? As far as the historical record goes, it was given to Peter by Jesus Christ. “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Although St. Ephrem of Syria, the “Harp of the Holy Spirit”, said it much more eloquently than I.

“Simon, My disciple, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church; I have called you the rock, that you might support the whole building. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they wish to build what is reprobate, you, the foundation, will forbid them. You are the head of the fountain from which My doctrine issues. You are the head of My disciples, and through you I will give drink to all nations. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn of My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be the executor of My treasures. I have given you authority over all My treasures.”