Disagree w/ or want argue Orthodox Church teaching? Please post here.

[sidbrown]

Mountains and Molehills???

Roman Catholic dogma, relating to Purgatory IS a mountain, metaphorically speaking.

The Unity of Western Christianity was “rent usunder” because of what you regard as a non-issue - to the dismay of the Eastern Orthodox, and many in your own Church.

The Reformation, Church division, inquisitions, deaths & wars etc… and not to mention, millions of western christians (protestants) choosing to reject apostolic succession and falling into further error (as understood by both RC and EO Churches) cannot legitimately be described as a “molehill”.

More like a tragedy for the whole Church - and what was a key trigger?

Roman Catholic dogma on purgatory and related matters - innovated & defined post schism, led to and caused a fracture in The Body of Christ, which for the first 1500 years of Christian history, had been preserved intact - by the very teaching that we Eastern Orthodox still adhere to.

Not a molehill.

It is not my position that Roman Catholics revert to pre-schism teaching - but I do think an acknowledgement of the fundamental core differences between yourselves and we Eastern orthodox should not be too much to ask… surely?

I don;t see the big distinction you are making between official Catholic teaching about Purgatory and what an Orthodox catechism says:
" here is a passage from a contemporary Orthodox catechism (Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.):
…3. But if he was a believer, and did not corrupt the faith, and
having sinned, did indeed repent, but did not reach the performance of
good deeds to prove his repentance by actions, then he is led where God
assigns him, that he may be punished temporarily, as long as Divine
Righteousness considers proper."
or what is said in the 1672 Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew Phillip,

It is tempting to look at just a few words of EO teaching and then ascribe a totally different meaning to the overall consensus teaching of our Church.

Our teaching is NOT virtually identical to yours - and differs fundamentally as to the nature of sin, repentance, forgiveness and ultimate access to salvation. These are not trifles, or based upon differing use of words and language as many Catholics (but not all) argue.

The fact that we Eastern Orthodox acknowledge and intermediate state between heaven and hell, prayer and other acts done by the living on behalf of the dead etc… in no way means that we agree with Roman Catholic dogma concerning the state of purgatory, the activity or efforts of the soul in that state, or the nature of sin as viewed by God.

The opposite is true.

The entirity of the quotes from Jassy and Jerusalem clearly show this truth - Roman Catholic dogma and extended teaching on purgatory being specifically repudiated, and even referred to as “fanciful”.

According to the EO - many teachings which are described as dogmatic re purgatory, and others actively taught as logical extensions of that dogma (Padre Pio etc…) are rightly condemned and considered heresy by the EO Church.

I believe your words are wise. But I do have concern for two portions of your statement above. First of all, your statement “the activity or efforts of the soul in that state” is not accurate. The soul in purgatory can do nothing for itself. The soul in purgatory is perfected/divinized/cleansed by the prayers, suffrages, and sacrifices of the Church on earth, especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass/DL/HQ.

The second concern I have is your statement “in no way.” Do you really see absolutely no areas of agreement, no possible rapprochement, on the issue of this intermediate state? I think you are aware that the Latin Catholic doctrine on Purgatory is a bit different from the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on Purgatory, correct? Perhaps if we pay attention less to the Latin theologumenon on the teaching, and more on the actual dogmatic teaching, there will be rapprochement on the issue. If you are not aware of what the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church is on Purgatory, please let me know.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

Mountains and Molehills???

Roman Catholic dogma, relating to Purgatory IS a mountain, metaphorically speaking.

The Unity of Western Christianity was “rent usunder” because of what you regard as a non-issue - to the dismay of the Eastern Orthodox, and many in your own Church.

The Reformation, Church division, inquisitions, deaths & wars etc… and not to mention, millions of western christians (protestants) choosing to reject apostolic succession and falling into further error (as understood by both RC and EO Churches) cannot legitimately be described as a “molehill”.

More like a tragedy for the whole Church - and what was a key trigger?

Roman Catholic dogma on purgatory and related matters - innovated & defined post schism, led to and caused a fracture in The Body of Christ, which for the first 1500 years of Christian history, had been preserved intact - by the very teaching that we Eastern Orthodox still adhere to.

Not a molehill.

It is not my position that Roman Catholics revert to pre-schism teaching - but I do think an acknowledgement of the fundamental core differences between yourselves and we Eastern orthodox should not be too much to ask… surely?

That is not fair, brother. I’m sure you know that the practice of granting synchorochartia by the EOC was fairly common until the 20th century. Just because there was not a group to complain and rebel about the practice in Eastern Orthodox lands doesn’t mean that such a distinction between the EO and the CC is warranted.

I pray you reconsider your critical position above for sake of understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Hi SMMonica,

Thanks for the compliment, but gotta say, you are miles ahead of me as far as theology is concerned… but I am taking the time to look carefully into this purgatory issue - about which I have learned a lot from you specifically! Thanks!

I will do some work on the “fire” question to try to shed some light on it (excuse the pun).

What I am sure of, is that there IS a serious issue here (as you have identified), perhaps because of the implications of this on the understanding of the nature of Divine Judgement. The implications of whether the nature of the “fire” is eternal or temporary does have huge implications, but I need to do a bit more work to understand that better.

As you know, we Eastern Orthodox generally do not describe the situation of the dead as involving suffering or fire, although we do talk in terms of the “direful condition” and “torment”.

So stay tuned Sister (unless you get to it first)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

The implications of whether the nature of the “fire” is eternal or temporary does have huge implications, but I need to do a bit more work to understand that better.

I pray you do, and since you are trying to find out about the Latin teaching, please do give ear to Catholic sources, instead of Orthodox ones on the matter.

You will find that the notion of purgatorial fire is a mere theologoumenon in the Latin Church, and not even on the level of official teaching in the Latin Church, much less a doctrine of the Catholic Church. If you investigate the matter, you will find that not even Trent in its dogmatic decrees mention the fire of purgatory. Further, at the Council of Florence, it was explicitly decided to deny it any place in the dogmatic decrees.

The reason fire is such a hotbed issue among Orthodox is only because Mark of Ephesus made a big deal of it. You have to ask “why?” since it did not even find a place in the dogmatic decrees of Florence.

I pray the spiritual fruits of wisdom and understanding prevades your research, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Yes, my understanding of the “torment” as described by the Fathers is not fire but the inability to satisfy through the body, the sinful passions of the soul…like let’s say some one was addicted to sex, after death the soul remains as in life aka lustful; however, without a body he/she is unable to satisfy that lust through sex and so that is “torment” for the person. This is why it is important to overcome all of our passions while on earth so that we do not suffer in the After Life…even people with a small attachment, like an addiction to coffee/caffine will be unable to satisfy their desire and it will be a “torment” also.

Hi SMMonica,

Thanks for the compliment, but gotta say, you are miles ahead of me as far as theology is concerned… but I am taking the time to look carefully into this purgatory issue - about which I have learned a lot from you specifically! Thanks!

I will do some work on the “fire” question to try to shed some light on it (excuse the pun).

What I am sure of, is that there IS a serious issue here (as you have identified), perhaps because of the implications of this on the understanding of the nature of Divine Judgement. The implications of whether the nature of the “fire” is eternal or temporary does have huge implications, but I need to do a bit more work to understand that better.

As you know, we Eastern Orthodox generally do not describe the situation of the dead as involving suffering or fire, although we do talk in terms of the “direful condition” and “torment”.

So stay tuned Sister (unless you get to it first)

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Hello All,

Thanks for your comments Sidbrown, Marduk and Monica…

I’m going to have a go at spelling out the fundamental differences between EO and RC teaching regarding Purgatory - as I believe this more than anything else will aid in understanding of our disparate positions on this. My objective here is not to create the conditions for full agreement, rapprochement or dissolution of those differences. This is not possible in this forum, and is not up to us to achieve anyway.

The differences are serious and fundamental to the nature of sin, repentance, forgiveness, judgement and salvation.

Firstly, a few important EO refutations of what has been argued here by Sid (RC) and Marduk (OO/EC) - arguments which suffer from fundamental misunderstanding of both EO and RC theology on this issue. IMO, Monica is pretty much ‘correct EO line’, but there is more to the “fire” issue than meets the eye.

For Sid: the EO Catechism section you quote is similar to the RC teaching, but importantly does not at all address any of the fundamental issues in dispute between our Churches. Simply stated, you have missed the real points of disagreement - and by quoting that which is not disputed, seek to claim that there is no argument on key questions between us. This is not helpful, and even unfair.

What are these questions? Why is the soul in purgatory/ hades in the first place? What is the soul doing whilst there? What changes whilst the soul is there? How does the soul get out? Who decides? What does forgiveness mean?

The Declarations of the EO Council of Jerusalem - in no way approximate or confirm RC teaching on purgatory - on the contrary they refute and repudiate it. I think your misunderstanding is not so much what we EO believe, but primarily arises from your misunderstanding of what your own RC Church teaches.

For Marduk: Yes there are areas of agreement between the EO & RC Churches on some issues here - but these do not negate the fundamental differences and their importance. This line of argument is itself unfair to the EO Church - which has maintained consistent teaching here since the begining of the Church, before, during and after schism.

The dogma and teachings which now make up the RC understanding of purgatory, were present within the pre-schism Church from the earliest times (Augustine, Origen, Gregory Dialogious, Gregory of Nyssa etc…), but were never accepted by all five Bishoprics or any of the 7 lawful Ecumenical Councils of the Church by consensus as official teaching. Any rapprochement has to be seen in that context, as the EO Church has to uphold truth before unity - and papering over Roman innovation, or accepting it, does not assist us in doing this.

**Your assertion that the soul does (or can do) “nothing” itself **whist in purgatory is correct EO teaching… but it is not RC teaching by any definition, or stretch of the imagination. I can only assume this belief prevails in the Coptic Church from pre-schism days, and is held in common with the pre-schism Church consensus.

Your assertion that a soul in purgatory is itself “perfected” to be more worthy - not only wholly contradicts your previous assertion, but completely misunderstands what happens to the soul in purgatory, and the nature of Divine Mercy & Forgiveness. This is definitely not EO teaching.

**Your admonishment of my critique of the RC dogma (and it’s effects on the unity of the Western Church), citing the practice of “synchorochartia” in the Greek Orthodox Church into the C20th (as well as the RC) is misplaced. **

This practice in Roman Catholicism, where money was taken in return for the issuance of a “certificate” to the payer cannot be called a common practice with the EO, because the basic purpose was different.

In the RC, such certificates were issued by Bishops (and sometimes Priests) - confirming the remission of temporal punishment by God (on earth and/ or in purgatory) - in return for certain acts which were sometimes religious, and sometimes secular or civil. These certificates often specified specific periods of time by which the soul would be perfected or purified, and often by which God would reduce the period of temporal punishment in return for the act or the indulgence - and of course the monetary payment. Such payment was often applied to private matters by the issuing cleric - leading to uproar, and finally splits in the western Church.

In the EO, certificates were sometimes issued only by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople - ***confirming only that the recipient had indeed, confessed - repented and been granted absolution for sins by the EO Church. ***The confirmatory certificate was paid for, in order to assist in the maintenance of Holy places only.

The Eastern Orthodox never dared to ‘instruct’ God to remit or reduce his temporal punishment or judgement in any way, and never ‘predicted’ this either - as this is a decision for God alone. Absolution is clearly within the authority of the Church to grant - and was never conditional upon payment for a certificate by the EO.

In another post, I will outline the fundamental points of dispute (pre and post schism) pertaining to purgatory/ hades, from both EO and RC perspectives - and attempt to define why these are disputed and full spiritual implications of the dispute. This post will include answers to the key questions outlined for Sid above, and the EO teaching on the eternal vs. the temporary “fire” discussion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

The dogma and teachings which now make up the RC understanding of purgatory, were present within the pre-schism Church from the earliest times (Augustine, Origen, Gregory Dialogious, Gregory of Nyssa etc…), but were never accepted by all five Bishoprics or any of the 7 lawful Ecumenical Councils of the Church by consensus as official teaching. Any rapprochement has to be seen in that context, as the EO Church has to uphold truth before unity - and papering over Roman innovation, or accepting it, does not assist us in doing this.

Please state for us here what the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church is on Purgatory. You have yet to demonstrate you know it, judging from this excerpt.

**Your assertion that the soul does (or can do) “nothing” itself **whist in purgatory is correct EO teaching… but it is not RC teaching by any definition, or stretch of the imagination. I can only assume this belief prevails in the Coptic Church from pre-schism days, and is held in common with the pre-schism Church consensus.

Please cite a source for your belief that the Latin Church teaches that the soul can do something for itself while in Purgatory.

Your assertion that a soul in purgatory is itself “perfected” to be more worthy - not only wholly contradicts your previous assertion.

What was my previous assertion that was contradictory?

In the RC, such certificates were issued by Bishops (and sometimes Priests) - confirming the remission of temporal punishment by God (on earth and/ or in purgatory) - in return for certain acts which were sometimes religious, and sometimes secular or civil.

No difference from synchorochartia, from what I can tell.

These certificates often specified specific periods of time by which the soul would be perfected or purified,

This is the ONLY distinction that I have seen in your whole post between the EO teaching and the CC teaching. Now, what we need is for you to present for us excerpts from councils of the Latin Church that made this practice some kind of dogmatic teaching that can be rightfully criticized.

Or maybe – just maybe – it was just a local theologoumenon in the Latin Church (like purgatorial fire).

often by which God would reduce the period of temporal punishment in return for the act or the indulgence -

No difference from synchorochartia here. Synchorochartia were also given for the removal of the temporal ecclesiastical penalties for sin.

and of course the monetary payment.

No difference from synchorochartia here.

Such payment was often applied to private matters by the issuing cleric - leading to uproar, and finally splits in the western Church.

This practice was condemned by the Church since it first started in the 13th century. That a few clerics were still abusing the practice/teaching cannot be used to condemn the Church herself.

In the EO, certificates were sometimes issued only by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople - confirming only that the recipient had indeed, confessed - repented and been granted absolution for sins by the EO Church.
No difference from indulgences here.
The confirmatory certificate was paid for, in order to assist in the maintenance of Holy places only.

No difference from indulgences here.

The Eastern Orthodox never dared to ‘instruct’ God to remit or reduce his temporal punishment or judgement in any way, and never ‘predicted’ this either - as this is a decision for God alone. Absolution is clearly within the authority of the Church to grant - and was never conditional upon payment for a certificate by the EO.

Here is what the Old Catholic Encyclopedia states on the idea of indulgences/remission of temporal punishment: “It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven.” Where does the Catholic Church teach that remission of temporal punishment is an absolution for sin? Please cite a Catholic source for that idea and we will believe you.

This post will include answers to the key questions outlined for Sid above, and the EO teaching on the eternal vs. the temporary “fire” discussion.

Why does the “eternal vs. temporal fire discussion” matter? Is the temporal fire a dogmatic teaching of the Latin Church?

Blessings

 

[Melchior]

I will respond to you privately regarding my “reversion” which was just made official through Confession this past Saturday.

Thanks, Monica. I look forward to reading them as soon as I can.

As for my seeming lack of charity I do apologize. It really was more of a combination of laziness (too many years of loooong careful posts that made my point in far too many words) and a desire to cut to the chase. I really was not trying to be a jerk. It would have sounded much better if we were face to face and you could see that I wasn’t spitting the words out in anger.

Perhaps my current, limited schedule should be a signal that I should not post unless I can do so with more time and consideration.

Mel

 

[dvdjs]

The dispute comes down to the question of whether the departed soul “changes” in any way, or whether the way God judges the departed soul changes - which is the fundamental dispute between EO & RC teachings.

No, I think we all agree that God is immutable. I would ask if you can find any support for the idea of a mutable God - not anthropomorphic metaphor, but theology.

Roman Catholics clearly teach that the departed soul may itself change in purgatory, and ‘purify’ from temporal sin and imperfect repentance, and strong (unresolved) attachment to temporal sin and other temporal matters.

Since God does not change, but, as we all agree, the fate of the soul can change, then it must be the case that the soul changes.

A “Fidelity” website of the Roman Catholic Church, in full accord with the Papacy and the Magisterium in Rome confirms this. The Padre Pio 'Spiritual Warfare’ site teaches that some departed souls in purgatory are given permission by God to visit the temporal plane, places and people in order to convey messages to the living (potentially playing an active role in their salvation), or to entreat the living for prayer, or to learn to let go of other earthly involvements etc…

Please be more careful with your words, I have no more objection to Catholics making such speculation than I do to Orthodox - even if the latter go on to limit this travelling to the first two or three days after death. But the ideas that you mentioned are not magisterial teachings of the Catholic church, neither are the additional idea that I mentioned (or aerial toll houses) dogmatic teachings of the Orthodox church.

1. The Eastern Orthodox Church does acknowledge an intermediate state (often referred to as Hades or the grave) between Heaven and Hell, where some souls abide after Particular Judgement (3 and 40 days after death), until either the Final Judgement after the Second Coming of Christ, or beforehand by Divine Mercy alone.

Please note that the 3 and 40 day entry journey are not dogmatic and that one Orthodox catechism already cited on this thread speaks of the particular judgment as occurring immediately after death. What else besides Divine Mercy saves us?

It acknowledges that some righteous souls are assumed into Heaven after Particular judgement - eg: The Most Holy Virgin and Saints etc…

I think it also acknowledges that at least one soul, namely Arius, is already in Hell.

Ukrainian Metropolitain of Kiev - Petro Mohila (1596-1646) in his Orthodox Confession which was adopted by the Orthodox Council of Jassy - Romania (1642) professes:

"many are freed from the prison of hell … through the good works of the living and the Church’s prayers for them, most of all through the unbloody sacrifice, which is offered on certain days for all the living and the dead" (question 64); and (under the heading “How must one consider the purgatorial fire?”) “the Church rightly performs for them the unbloody sacrifice and prayers, but they do not cleanse themselves by suffering something. But, the Church never maintained that which pertains to the fanciful stories of some concerning the souls of their dead, who have not done penance and are punished, as it were, in streams, springs and swamps” (question 66)."

The idea that departed “cleanse themselves” is odd. There is nothing “active” about purgatorial cleansing in Catholic teaching. People find themselves in that state and undergo purification. It is all passive. As to the “streams, springs and swamps” … what is this Dante? This is not magisterial.

Eastern Orthodox teach that souls asleep in Hades are concious of “light” - also known as the Divine presence, in which case they are at “rest”. They are also concious of “darkness” - also known as the absence of the Divine presence, in which case they are in “torment”. These souls also are conscious of the possibility that their Final Judgement outcome may be subject to change, through Divine Grace and Mercy alone, responding to the activities of the living (prayer, fasting, acts of mercy and offerings of the ‘unbloody sacrifice’).

Torment. Bingo.

***“the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought” (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, ***and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."Endure punishment. Bingo.

 

[dvdjs]

Our teaching is NOT virtually identical to yours - and differs fundamentally as to the nature of sin, repentance, forgiveness and ultimate access to salvation. These are not trifles, or based upon differing use of words and language as many Catholics (but not all) argue.
…
The entirity of the quotes from Jassy and Jerusalem clearly show this truth - Roman Catholic dogma and extended teaching on purgatory being specifically repudiated, and even referred to as “fanciful”.

According to the EO - many teachings which are described as dogmatic re purgatory, and others actively taught as logical extensions of that dogma (Padre Pio etc…) are rightly condemned and considered heresy by the EO Church.

I would like to see specific, authoritative condemnations of “heresy”, but first please explain how, outside of an ecumenical council, heresy is determined in the EO. And let me know if under your definition the idea of Aerial Tool Houses is heretical or not.

More importantly, you fail to distinguish between a real or a perceived difference, or to distinguish between RC dogma and “extended teachings”. The fact that someone uses the term :fanciful" suffices to prove a perceived difference, but is insufficient to prove a real one: that requires proof not mere quip. Moreover, until you resolve the disparate teachings on Aerial Toll Houses, you are in no position to criticize popular elaborations of magisterial teachings. A substantive discussion of significant differences can only be done with actual dogma and doctrine.

 

[dvdjs]

What are these questions? Why is the soul in purgatory/ hades in the first place? What is the soul doing whilst there? What changes whilst the soul is there? How does the soul get out? Who decides? What does forgiveness mean?

Good questions.

…arises from your misunderstanding of what your own RC Church teaches.

This a recurring problem on the forum: EO’s insisting on what Catholics believe instead of listening to what Catholics tell them Catholics believe. You may be right, but you will have to do some thorough work to prove it. Your say-so will not suffice.

This line of argument is itself unfair to the EO Church - which has maintained consistent teaching here since the begining of the Church, before, during and after schism.
The dogma and teachings which now make up the RC understanding of purgatory, were present within the pre-schism Church from the earliest times (Augustine, Origen, Gregory Dialogious, Gregory of Nyssa etc…), but were never accepted by all five Bishoprics or any of the 7 lawful Ecumenical Councils of the Church by consensus as official teaching. Any rapprochement has to be seen in that context, as the EO Church has to uphold truth before unity - and papering over Roman innovation, or accepting it, does not assist us in doing this.

The argument is weak. First, given the rooting of Catholic belief in pre-schism patristic thinking, it is fair to conclude that the EO HAS changed. Ideas that caused no controversy in the pre-schism church were elevated much later to grounds for breaking communion. Indeed the idea that council did not ratify these teachings works against you: councils were convened in t first millenium to sort out controversy. Until the iconoclasts, for example, there were no conciliar decrees on icons. So what?

Your assertion that the soul does (or can do) “nothing” itself hewhist in purgatory is correct EO teaching… but it is not RC teaching by any definition, or stretch of the imagination. I can only assume this belief prevails in the Coptic Church from pre-schism days, and is held in common with the pre-schism Church consensus.

Prove that this is not Catholic teaching. Your say-so is not adequate,

Your assertion that a soul in purgatory is itself “perfected” to be more worthy - not only wholly contradicts your previous assertion, but completely misunderstands what happens to the soul in purgatory, and the nature of Divine Mercy & Forgiveness. This is definitely not EO teaching.

“is perfected” is passive. No one claims that the soul perfects itself. There is no contradiction. Best wishes on your study of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness in the CC. Please read the Catechism.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Marduk and Dvdjs…

Who is telling who what they believe???

You guys are presuming the authority to tell EOC members what they believe - and when we object with evidence of your RCC dogma, teaching, practice and “theologioumen” arising from this… you use a legalistic truncating argument to deny the truth.

In academia, business, politics AND theology - fullest context is necessary to determine belief systems. Your argument that only “dogma” is relevant is an exercise in sophistry, which requires overall context to be ignored.

If only dogma informs RCC teaching and practice - you as a Church then need to explain your overall departure from accepted norms of consensus in the EO - not the other way around! Your practice often contradicts your own dogma - and sometimes, your dogma contradicts accepted teaching of the EOC.

Your dogma has no legal legitimacy as far as the EOC is concerned.

No EOC adherent is going to accept such an argument - because RCC “theologioumen” or “opinion based upon less than full scriptural information” has determined practices regarding purgatory which we EO regard as heresy.

Are you seriously arguing that you reject the non-dogmatic teaching, opinion and practices of the RCC??? If so, say so up front.

We EO have never accepted Papal pronouncements as infallible, definitive or legal. We do not accept the final decisions of your Magisterium as legal either. To us, Catholic “dogma” has not been determined with our legitimate (name removed by moderator)ut - since the Bishopric of Rome decided that those of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were irrelevant to these determinations.

What we find curious, is that Catholics in general go to great lengths to assert that their teachings are not inconsistent with ours. Clearly, this is false. We are particularly curious that those who tend to argue this most strenuously are Oriental, Eastern and Byzantine Catholics who seem to feel that they need to justify their actual beliefs in the uncomfortable context of their full communion with Rome.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

And another thing too…

The EO and the RC Churches differ on the nature of the theologioumen - issues where scriptural information is less than full or absent.

Unlike the Bishop of Rome, we never usurped the authority of God to pronounce on these matters - in the absence of His specific revelation through scripture.

We EO have absolute respect for the “Mysteries” of God… we do not posit teaching or practice where there is no revelation through scripture as you do.

From an EO perspective the RCC is overly “legalistic” meaning that you create teaching and practice (if not dogma) which is NOT part of what has been Divinely revealed to man (us). We therefore have no intellectual need to recognise differences between dogma, theologioum (opinion) or practice and teaching.

This is because it leads to error, division and even heresy.

Historically, this has been observed to be the case with many Roman innovations.

We believe it’s better to say nothing - rather than allow error to inform teaching and practice of the Body of Christ on earth.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

The Immutable nature of God…

Dvdjs… and i suspect you are a Ukrainian like me… how can you argue that God does not ever change his judgement?

There are so many Old Testament examples where his “immutable” laws were varied or disregarded by His Divine will and Authority… Look at Solomon, David etc…

But most convincingly, if God is immutable - and I assure you Brother, we EO do not agree with you, why then do we pray and entreat his mercy (both RCC and EOC actively pursue this).

This is not a futile exercise. God is not deaf to our entreaties. In His wisdom, and by His Grace & Mercy He may decide to change his judgement of any man - regardless of the Law.

Look to the various covenants God has entered into with men. The Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic etc… - why the new covenant with Jesus Christ Our Lord?

God is not immutable in the sense you argue.

In Purgatory (correctly Hades) the soul of man does not alter - God’s “judgement” is what we know alters, depending upon the entreaties and actions of the living faithful - but only by His consent and Divine Will. Man does not direct this - and the Earthly Church has not been given authority to do this. We beg… He may respond.

The soul is NOT changed in Hades - the nature of JUDGEMENT of the soul may change. This happens by His Mercy and Grace alone. It never happens (even in life) by innate merit or works - as none is worthy - but by His amazing Grace.

If the soul is to be perfected and purified in what you call purgatory… it must have cognition, it must learn, change attitudes, attachments, beliefs and behaviours. This can happen during earthly life… but not after death. A soul departed cannot purify passively.

This is an absurd position - and not what the RCC teaches.

Passive change is not possible during life, just as it is not possible after life.

It is God’s judgement that may change after death, not the soul departed.

That is pre-schismatic teaching, and still the view of the EOC today.

I ask that you read and study the teachings of YOUR Mother Church - the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I agree with Andrew. And it is strange that the Catholics here try to make similar what is not…Why?

Marduk and Dvdjs…

Who is telling who what they believe???

You guys are presuming the authority to tell EOC members what they believe - and when we object with evidence of your RCC dogma, teaching, practice and “theologioumen” arising from this… you use a legalistic truncating argument to deny the truth.

In academia, business, politics AND theology - fullest context is necessary to determine belief systems. Your argument that only “dogma” is relevant is an exercise in sophistry, which requires overall context to be ignored.

If only dogma informs RCC teaching and practice - you as a Church then need to explain your overall departure from accepted norms of consensus in the EO - not the other way around! Your practice often contradicts your own dogma - and sometimes, your dogma contradicts accepted teaching of the EOC.

Your dogma has no legal legitimacy as far as the EOC is concerned.

No EOC adherent is going to accept such an argument - because RCC “theologioumen” or “opinion based upon less than full scriptural information” has determined practices regarding purgatory which we EO regard as heresy.

Are you seriously arguing that you reject the non-dogmatic teaching, opinion and practices of the RCC??? If so, say so up front.

We EO have never accepted Papal pronouncements as infallible, definitive or legal. We do not accept the final decisions of your Magisterium as legal either. To us, Catholic “dogma” has not been determined with our legitimate (name removed by moderator)ut - since the Bishopric of Rome decided that those of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were irrelevant to these determinations.

What we find curious, is that Catholics in general go to great lengths to assert that their teachings are not inconsistent with ours. Clearly, this is false. We are particularly curious that those who tend to argue this most strenuously are Oriental, Eastern and Byzantine Catholics who seem to feel that they need to justify their actual beliefs in the uncomfortable context of their full communion with Rome.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

You guys are presuming the authority to tell EOC members what they believe - and when we object with evidence of your RCC dogma, teaching, practice and “theologioumen” arising from this… you use a legalistic truncating argument to deny the truth.

Please tell us exactly where we are “presuming the authority to tell EOC members what they believe.” All we are doing is pointing out the similarities as we see them. If you disagree, the proper response is to point out where we are wrong on those particular points, not hide behind statements as you have given above.

Yes, there are distinctions, but not in any of the points that I or brother dvdjs have noted, and you have proposed nothing that could counter our observations.

We are trying to have a civil and intelligent discussion, that is all.

Again, if you can offer anything solid to counter our observations, please present them. To depend on mere and overly general and unfounded claims (“we are different, just take our word for it”) is not going to advance this discussion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Not being an expert in Orthodoxy, is the beard mandatory for priests? I would HATE having to look like a ZZ Top video all the time just to be a presbyter!

Unshaven priesthood is the norm and comes from pre-Christian times. So really it’s ZZ Top who looks like a presbyter, not the other way around

There ia a few % of men who are incapable of growing any facial hair and this is Not held against them.

The pastor of my Greek Orthodox Church doesn’t have a beard because of lack of facial hair. The other priest at our Church does have a bread and he keeps it short. My spiritual father, a pastor of Russian parish, has the normal priestly beard one would expect - very long.

Look at the Icons, you canl pretty much always tell which men were priests and which were not.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I wonder if the angel with the flaming sword is still there gaurding the garden of Eden?

I think that the Flood washed away the Garden of Eden and so the Angel with the flaming sword is no longer necessary, since their is no longer a Garden of Eden.

With Christ Jesus, our hope is no longer for an earthly paradise, but for real union with God in Heaven through Theosis.

We now have a greater hope!

 

[Mickey]

Torment. Bingo. Endure punishment. Bingo.

Yes. Playing bingo is a torment and an enduring punishment.