Catholic or Orthodox

[ConstantineTG]

The Ruthenian & ACROD churches include the underlined verses in the prayer. Usually, the sign of the cross is made after each “Remember me”. The OCA churches and the Antiochian churches I’ve been to say only the first Remember me, omitting the second and third ones, which I understand are particular to the Ruthenians (and maybe Ukrainians, don’t know on that).

Here is the OCA version:

*I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. I believe also that this is truly Thine Own Most Pure Body, and this is truly Thine Own Precious Blood, Therefore, I pray Thee: have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, committed in knowledge or in ignorance. And make me worthy to partake without condemnation of Thy most pure Mysteries, for the remission of my sins, and unto life everlasting. Amen. Of Thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of Thy Mystery to Thine enemies, neither like Judas will I give Thee a kiss, but like the thief will I confess Thee: Rememeber me, O Lord, in Thy Kingdom. May the communion of Thy holy Mysteries be neither to my judgment, nor to my condemnation, O Lord, but to the healing of soul and body. Amen. [God be merciful to me…]

*You can note the change of location for certain verses. One thing that surprises me about the version you provide is that it does not mention the verse I believe also that this is truly Thine Own Most Pure Body…Thine Own Precious Blood. I distinctly remember this being part of the pre-communion prayer at the Ruthenian Catholic church I attended. Is this sometimes omitted?

I copied it as is from the text we use, there are no optional lines. It seems theres a general thought on the prayer, but the words evolved a little bit differently from each ritual Church in the Byzantine Rite.

 

[Nine_Two]

Its similar but different:

*I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood. Therefore, I pray to You, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And make me worthy without condemnation to partake of Your pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal. Amen.

How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me.

Loving Master, Lord Jesus Christ, my God, let not these holy Gifts be to my condemnation because of my unworthiness, but for the cleansing and sanctification of soul and body and the pledge of the future life and kingdom. It is good for me to cling to God and to place in Him the hope of my salvation.

Receive me today, Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries. Nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess to You: Lord, remember me in Your kingdom.
*

The one we use is more concise while this one is more elaborate in the words.

The prayer itself is ancient, I believe ascribed to St. Basil the Great, although I could be wrong, however the question is when it came to use in the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two: ]The prayer itself is ancient, I believe ascribed to St. Basil the Great, although I could be wrong, however the question is when it came to use in the Divine Liturgy.

Interestingly, the kernel of the prayer said today seems to be in the Liturgy of St. James:

O Lord our God, the heavenly bread, the life of the universe, I have sinned against Heaven, and before Thee, and am not worthy to partake of Thy pure mysteries; but as a merciful God, make me worthy by Thy grace, without condemnation to partake of Thy holy body and precious blood, for the remission of sins, and life everlasting.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.ii.html

Perhaps St. Basil expanded on the original words and the expanded version became adopted into the liturgy that bears his name.

 

[dvdjs]

See St. Gregory’s “Against Those Who Deny That Prayer Works Backwards”

We know God as pre-existent and eternal, outside the confines of time. We often think of God as before the ages, but He is just as much at the consummation of the ages as at the beginning. Perhaps we can say that our future, though distant for us, already is realized for God, who is omniscient and does not limit himself to acting according to a gradual forward motion of time.

I do not know what the Fathers have to say on this matter, but that’s just a thought.

Thanks. Do you know of anything from EO sources about this idea on the context of praying for the dead. You may recall that an EO poster a while back made the claim - with no support - that the idea was to change God’s mind. This sounds much better.

 

[Nine_Two]

Interestingly, the kernel of the prayer said today seems to be in the Liturgy of St. James:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.ii.html

Perhaps St. Basil expanded on the original words and the expanded version became adopted into the liturgy that bears his name.

I just checked, my prayer book attributes it to St. John Chrysosotom, not St. Basil. Oops.

I think it is quite probable that it was an expanded version of an even older prayer though, it isn’t very uncommon. The Jesus Prayer afterall, despite being so short, is afterall an expansion of the publicans prayer.

 

[dvdjs]

Interestingly, the kernel of the prayer said today seems to be in the Liturgy of St. James:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.ii.html

Perhaps St. Basil expanded on the original words and the expanded version became adopted into the liturgy that bears his name.

But note the caveat:

EARLY LITURGIES.4086 [This title is misleading, as we have no copies of the originals of these liturgies, and they are encrusted with the ideas of later ages. I shall distinguish between the interpolations legitimately made by councils and the manifest corruptions which contradict Scripture and ancient authors. N.B.: I print the deacon’s parts as such.]
These are liturgies are not the ancient forms; one cannot tell priority and subsequent development by inspection of these texts. Some of these are pointed out in the notes, but not all: obviously, the Nicene Creed was not in the liturgy served by St James.

 

[Madaglan]

But note the caveat:

EARLY LITURGIES.4086 [This title is misleading, as we have no copies of the originals of these liturgies, and they are encrusted with the ideas of later ages. I shall distinguish between the interpolations legitimately made by councils and the manifest corruptions which contradict Scripture and ancient authors. N.B.: I print the deacon’s parts as such.]
These are liturgies are not the ancient forms; one cannot tell priority and subsequent development by inspection of these texts. Some of these are pointed out in the notes, but not all: obviously, the Nicene Creed was not in the liturgy served by St James.

For this editor, encrusted corruptions which contradict Scripture and ancient authors means words that seem to affirm Catholic beliefs and practices pertaining to the veneration of Mary, recognition of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, the use of incense, etc. This may sound harsh, but this tendency is found in his footnotes throughout the translation of the liturgy. He writes against what he sees as superstitious and Mariolatrous interpretations (no doubt having Catholicism in mind).

Perhaps the texts do not give the most ancient form, but I believe the editor is looking at the texts through Protestant lens that presupposes certain doctrinal corruptions introduced into the Church, and so I would not put too much stock in his warning. The texts overall, the Nicene Creed addition aside, may be closer to the original than he thinks.

 

[Madaglan]

Thanks. Do you know of anything from EO sources about this idea on the context of praying for the dead. You may recall that an EO poster a while back made the claim - with no support - that the idea was to change God’s mind. This sounds much better.

I do not know of any EO sources about this particular idea on the context of praying for the dead. Most prayers for the dead (e.g. Panahida) ask God to forgive all the deceased person’s transgressions and to make their memory be eternal. From our human perspective, we cannot change the past (our prayers cannot make something that happened not have happened), but we can pray for God to have mercy on the person. It’s not changing God’s mind, but rather God gives mind to our prayers in his taking action, and so prayer is efficacious.

 

[dvdjs]

For this editor, encrusted corruptions which contradict Scripture and ancient authors means words that seem to affirm Catholic beliefs and practices pertaining to the veneration of Mary, recognition of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, the use of incense, etc. This may sound harsh, but this tendency is found in his footnotes throughout the translation of the liturgy. He writes against what he sees as superstitious and Mariolatrous interpretations (no doubt having Catholicism in mind).

Perhaps the texts do not give the most ancient form, but I believe the editor is looking at the texts through Protestant lens that presupposes certain doctrinal corruptions introduced into the Church, and so I would not put too much stock in his warning. The texts overall, the Nicene Creed addition aside, may be closer to the original than he thinks.

Your point about his bias is well-taken. But the appearance of the Creed indicates the presence of additions made long after St James, and makes this text unreliable for establishing priority. I suspect there is good scholarship on this liturgy, but without serious study it is tricky to say what came first and who borrowed from whom.

 

[dvdjs]

I do not know of any EO sources about this particular idea on the context of praying for the dead. Most prayers for the dead (e.g. Panahida) ask God to forgive all the deceased person’s transgressions and to make their memory be eternal. From our human perspective, we cannot change the past (our prayers cannot make something that happened not have happened), but we can pray for God to have mercy on the person. It’s not changing God’s mind, but rather God gives mind to our prayers in his taking action, and so prayer is efficacious.

Yes, I see this much the same way.

 

[Mickey]

The way I see scripture, it points to Peter’s supremacy and the need for a Supreme Pontiff for the Church on earth.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

First of all, I erred in accepting another poster’s claim that it’s by one Fr. Harrison, without checking the name on the article itself! The article appears to be by Jimmy Akin. I respect a lot of Akin’s work, but it doesn’t look as if he’s given a lot of serious consideration to Orthodoxy. Nor is there any necessary reason why he should. You can’t possibly consider all options equally. But those of us who do take the Orthodox perspective seriously–in my case both because I have spent time in Romania and actually had personal exposure to Orthodoxy before I had had much exposure to Catholicism outside of books, and because my issues with the claims of Catholicism have been more protracted and difficult to resolve that Mr. Akin’s appear to have been–the article just isn’t going to get very far.Edwin

The cover of This Rock magazine for October 2008 announces the article: “The Appeal of Eastern Orthodoxy – and Its Fatal Flaw” by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S. Inside, on page 18, the article is introduced: “I found myself confronted by the reality of two great communions – the two largest in Christendom, in fact – presenting themselves as rival claimants to the gift of infallibility.” The article follows:

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp

It was not written by Jimmy Akin.

Jim Dandy

Edit to add: I reviewed my first post and realize the error was mine. I initially posted the wrong link. I apologize. Sorry.

 

[Bluegoat]

This is a very interesting response. There is little to be gained by discussing what God might choose. But I am interested by your suggestion that praying for the dead might actually be considered by the Church, or by those saying such prayers, as having been previously applicable, before death. Is there any theological backing for that idea? Anything from the fathers?

I’m not sure what you are finding confusing. God is not bound by time. For our prayers to be “effectual” in some way for those who are dead does not mean that they need to be in purgatory. God in the moment of creation takes into account each action of each individual throughout history, including our prayers. We have no idea how they might be accounted for, or effectual, or answered.

This question of purgatory really gets into other questions, such as the Orthodox understanding off Heaven and Hell, and whether it is possible to change our disposition after death. Orthodoxy doesn’t always have a clear dogmatic answer to this as far as i can see. However, they do clearly reject the Catholic understanding of Purgatory which has other elements, as well as the idea of making it an item required for belief.

Aikin’s article doesn’t suggest that his thinking on the topic really even got that far, and these are substantial issues - it didn’t even get as far as “God can address our prayers for the dead even if there is no purgatory”. It’s just not that impressive.

 

[jam070406]

I’m not sure what you are finding confusing. God is not bound by time. For our prayers to be “effectual” in some way for those who are dead does not mean that they need to be in purgatory. God in the moment of creation takes into account each action of each individual throughout history, including our prayers. We have no idea how they might be accounted for, or effectual, or answered.

This question of purgatory really gets into other questions, such as the Orthodox understanding off Heaven and Hell, and whether it is possible to change our disposition after death. Orthodoxy doesn’t always have a clear dogmatic answer to this as far as i can see. However, they do clearly reject the Catholic understanding of Purgatory which has other elements, as well as the idea of making it an item required for belief.

Aikin’s article doesn’t suggest that his thinking on the topic really even got that far, and these are substantial issues - it didn’t even get as far as “God can address our prayers for the dead even if there is no purgatory”. It’s just not that impressive.

If Mr. Aikin came to a conclusion that Orthodox believe the faithfully departed go through some sort of trial or purification after death, but before entering Heaven, (which can be pointed to in scripture) it’s because Orthodox had given him that impression by their own teaching. He even mentions this in the next paragraph (see below), which everyone chooses to ignore.
It’s not an either/or scenario. He doesn’t mention it in his article but, he certainly does believe our prayers can be of effect to the departed in their life on earth, as God is outside of time. Like you stated. I’ve heard him talk about it on the radio. But he doesn’t ignore the fact that prayers can have an effect on the purification of souls after they have died, but before they have entered Heaven. Again, which is alluded to in scripture. And based on his background he did a great deal of study of scripture and could not ignore those passages. Your conclusion says nothing of the passages Mr. Aikin ran across, which the Catholic Church uses as the basis of it’s teaching.

Again, from his article:

“Rather than using the image of fire for the purification (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–15), Orthodox often picture the soul passing through a series of “toll houses” on its road to heavenly glory. It’s a different image, but it points to the fundamental reality that the saved soul may have to undergo some form of ordeal before it is admitted to full heavenly glory”

 

[Bluegoat]

If Mr. Aikin came to a conclusion that Orthodox believe the faithfully departed go through some sort of trial or purification after death, but before entering Heaven, (which can be pointed to in scripture) it’s because Orthodox had given him that impression by their own teaching. He even mentions this in the next paragraph (see below), which everyone chooses to ignore.
It’s not an either/or scenario. He doesn’t mention it in his article but, he certainly does believe our prayers can be of effect to the departed in their life on earth, as God is outside of time. Like you stated. I’ve heard him talk about it on the radio. But he doesn’t ignore the fact that prayers can have an effect on the purification of souls after they have died, but before they have entered Heaven. Again, which is alluded to in scripture. And based on his background he did a great deal of study of scripture and could not ignore those passages. Your conclusion says nothing of the passages Mr. Aikin ran across, which the Catholic Church uses as the basis of it’s teaching.

Again, from his article:

“Rather than using the image of fire for the purification (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–15), Orthodox often picture the soul passing through a series of “toll houses” on its road to heavenly glory. It’s a different image, but it points to the fundamental reality that the saved soul may have to undergo some form of ordeal before it is admitted to full heavenly glory”

yes, some Orthodox “picture” that. However it is very controversial and certianly not something they are required to believe.

His claim in the article is that many differences differences in teaching and doctrine are matters of semantics. He says that the Orthodox believe in something like Purgatory, and the fact that they pray for the dead shows this because there would be no point otherwise. He may well understand the way God responds to prayer, but he is not showing it here. And then uses toll houses, which a very controversial, to show that they believe in something like purgatory?

That is just a lame-o argument. There may have been more to it, but if he couldn’t address it in a short article, he needed to make it longer.

 

[Mickey]

That is just a lame-o argument.

Indeed.

 

[Contarini]

The cover of This Rock magazine for October 2008 announces the article: “The Appeal of Eastern Orthodoxy – and Its Fatal Flaw” by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S. Inside, on page 18, the article is introduced: “I found myself confronted by the reality of two great communions – the two largest in Christendom, in fact – presenting themselves as rival claimants to the gift of infallibility.” The article follows:

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp

It was not written by Jimmy Akin.

Jim Dandy

Edit to add: I reviewed my first post and realize the error was mine. I initially posted the wrong link. I apologize. Sorry.

OK–that makes sense.

Fr. Harrison’s article addresses the issues at a deeper level than Mr. Akin’s, but it ultimately suffers from the same flaws. Both of them assume that the Orthodox must have some kind of juridical account of what makes a Council authoritative, so they hunt for Orthodox theologians who talk in those terms and describe these theologians as “mainstream.” Neither of them deals with George Florovsky’s description of Councils as “charismatic events,” even though this is the best way to understand the “receptionist” wing of Orthodox theology.

Few Orthodox theologians I’ve read would speak about “interrupted infallibility,” or would say that they are waiting around for Rome to “return” in order for the Church to be able to speak authoritatively. I have to wonder who these “mainstream” theologians are to whom Fr. Harrison refers.

The most revealing part of the essay, for me, was Fr. Harrison’s claim that the problems with Catholicism boil down to a failure on the part of Popes and bishops to be sufficiently authoritarian. He and other conservative Catholics are unwilling to consider the possibility that the RCC has been on the wrong track for centuries in terms of how authority is exercised, and that the doctrinal chaos that followed Vatican II was the result of the RCC having relied on coercive, authoritarian control for a long time rather than nurturing the sensus fidelium. Yet the evidence, as I see it, points pretty strongly in that conclusion. There’s as much to support this criticism of the RCC as there is to support the criticisms of the Constantinopolitan Communion in which Harrison and Akin engage.

When I hear conservative RCs solemnly claim that the best answer to the current problems is a return to authoritarianism, I shudder–it’s as if I heard the Orthodox saying that the answer to their current problems was the restoration of the Byzantine Empire (and alas, there are some Orthodox who think this–but not too many influential ones, it seems to me).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Anybody for the Anglican Middle Way? Anybody?

+ + +

Depends what you mean by it. But generally the “Anglican Middle Way” is a hopeless hodge-podge, born of early modern idolatry toward the state.

I’m an Anglican. There are lots of glorious things about Anglicanism. But Anglicanism is not some kind of coherent and viable alternative to Rome or the East. At best, we have some words to offer each side which may help them get back together–but we need to offer those words humbly, recognizing that our own tradition has far more glaring flaws than either of theirs.

Edwin

 

[jam070406]

yes, some Orthodox “picture” that. However it is very controversial and certianly not something they are required to believe.

His claim in the article is that many differences differences in teaching and doctrine are matters of semantics. He says that the Orthodox believe in something like Purgatory, and the fact that they pray for the dead shows this because there would be no point otherwise. He may well understand the way God responds to prayer, but he is not showing it here. And then uses toll houses, which a very controversial, to show that they believe in something like purgatory?

That is just a lame-o argument. There may have been more to it, but if he couldn’t address it in a short article, he needed to make it longer.

Do Orthodox believe something may happen to the departed before entering Heaven?
I agree the article needed to be longer.

 

[Bluegoat]

Do Orthodox believe something may happen to the departed before entering Heaven?
I agree the article needed to be longer.

Some do. But they don’t dogmatize it, and they don’t attach it to ideas about merit and penance.

But even then I find myself hesitating, because some would say that everyone enters Heaven. Also, I am not sure, but many seem to have a somewhat different conception of the chain of events after death and leading up to judgment.

For some, there are some similarities to what some Catholics believe about Purgatory. But to say that this means they are saying the same thing is not accurate.