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

[SingleMomMonica]

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

 

[sidbrown]

For Sid: the EO Catechism section you quote is similar to the RC teaching,…]

Do Orthodox believe what is written in the passage quoted?

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

You will have to remind me about the contents of the quote to which you refer… if you can reproduce it here, I will answer your question - and may need to explain the EO interpretation of the literal words quoted as well… in their fullest context of all that we teach about Hades.

From memory, the quote you produced talked about the third state of the departed - outside of Heaven or Hell. It did not talk about the soul being “purified” or participating in such an event - EO reject that RC teaching. There is no such thing as “passive purification” in the bible, (all purification from sin requires consent, new attitudes, new thinking, new beliefs, new confession, new repentance etc…) - or in any EO teaching.

We believe that God’s JUDGEMENT of the departed soul may change while they are in this place or state - and all of our prayers petition God’s mercy in judgement for the departed - not their purification or purging - a FUNDAMENTAL difference with the RCC.

If Hades, or purgatory involves “punishment” - it is not in our tradition designed to change the soul in any way, such as RC teach. We believe such torment is not vindicatory, chastising, corrective, reformative, cleansing or designed to teach the soul anything or to give it the incentive to change. It is just torment (punishment) … a necessary consequence of sin.

We acknowledge the eternal fire of hell and damnation which is also not designed to teach, reform, purify or save the soul. It too is just punishment.

We EO believers are not taught that Hades involves a “purifying” temporary fire which changes the soul state as Catholics are.

 

[dvdjs]

Marduk and Dvdjs…

Who is telling who what they believe???

You are, as I specifically quoted above.

You guys are presuming the authority to tell EOC members what they believe

But you supply no specific quotes. So what exactly are you referring to?
I will stipulate that I am certainly willing to question the EO posters here, most of whom have spent less time participating in Orthodox services that I have. And I have no hesitation in their all too frequent pointing errors of fact. If you refer to a specific comment, I would be happy to discuss it in detail.

• 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 you are adopting a sociological approach, fine, all this other stuff be important to the ways Catholic think and live. It becomes part of culture. Thus, Dante’s imagery may permeate the minds of some Catholics in some places and this permeation may impact the way they practice their faith. However, a serious analysis of Catholic mentality and lifestyle would need to be reconsidered from place to place across the globe. (Is Dante big in Uganda?) The same is true about Orthodoxy, of course. I know enough European cradle Orthodox to understand the difference between them and American neo-netodox. However this However, this broader socio-cultural analysis is not possible to do in any meaningful way here. We would probably just devolve into ethnic stereotyping. What we can hope to do, if we narrow the scope of the discussion, is to consider each others fundamental beliefs. We can hope to compare dogma meaningfully. It is not sophistry (and really why raise this nasty spectre?) to do this. It is simply structuring the problem in a way that we can hope to say something beyond mere say-so. This approach is vital in serious academia. It is the essence of theology. Politics is probably different.

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.

Before telling people what they need to do, you should do some heavy lifting of your own, Prove something about “accepted norms of consensus”. More specifically, prove departures from such norms. Previously you argued from the silence of ecumenical councils. I pointed out the error in this argument. Do you have something cogent?

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

.
Likewise, we really need to have a mutual understading of what Catholic dogma is before it makes any sense to talk about its 'legal legitimacy", whatever that means.

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.

We?? I expect that you could prove that “Catholics in general go to great lengths…”. Just, once again, your say-so. Like you claims about the clarity of the falsehood.

Your analysis of motivation is interesting in a revealing way, but it misses the mark entirely. As an Eastern Christian, I object to misrepresentations of Eastern Christianity, and write to correct it. As an Eastern Catholic, I am completely comfortable with my relationship with Rome, and with Latin Catholics. And be assured, I haven’t the slightest impulse to justify anything about Eastern Catholicism to anyone; the very idea more than a little odd.

 

[Madaglan]

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!

I’ve never heard about the Garden of Eden being washed away by the Flood. Very interesting.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Andrew,

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

The Catechism of Trent in Article V mentions a “fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth.”
Source: catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/ApostlesCreed05.shtml

The Catechism of Trent situates this as one of the abodes of Hell.

 

[dvdjs]

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

I am not Ukrainian - let’s not go there.

You are very adamant in your positions, which you repeat in many variants. I am open to a discussion - rooted, in scripture, patristics, lex orandi, etc. - of how your views are compatible with the immutability of God. I think that this is a subtle problem, that may have a subtle answer. But your say-so, just doesn’t cut it. I think you may have wandered off the track on the consciousness of the soul after death (lapsing back to soul sleep?) and on God’s immutability.

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

I ask that you avoid primate display.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

OK then dvdjs… let’s pin this down to specifics about what the RCC teaches and practices relating to Purgatory.

Dogma, teaching, theologioumen and actual practice are all relevant to we EOC members.

It’s best if you start with your understanding of this and allow me and other EO people to respond - agree, conditionally agree or disagree and refute.

Since your understanding of Catholic teaching here is claimed to be better than mine, this seems a sensible way to proceed.

I would be grateful to you if you could define the RCC Purgatory teaching as you understand it, any differences which exist between the Latin Rite and Byzantine Rite on the matter (which conclusively do exist on an ‘agree to disagree’ basis) - and if it assists you - to compare and contrast with what you see as Eastern Orthodox teaching on Hades. But only if it assists you to define your own Churches positions. OK?

Also, would you mind responding to my earlier refutation about what you call the “immutability of God” - which you claim proves RCC teaching that the soul changes in Purgatory, and not Gods judgement of it? Personally, I find that argument biblically and traditionally absurd - but let’s deal with it aswell.

Time for some heavy lifting on your part now - don’t tell me me about what the EOC teaches me - tell me about what the RCC and ECC Byzantine Rite teach you please?

Some quotes would be nice too - as I think i have provided quite a few more than either you or Marduk. Sid Brown has produced a couple of good ones, which we are discussing.

Short and sweet is best to cover off this topic more easily.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I’ve never heard about the Garden of Eden being washed away by the Flood. Very interesting.

Everything on earth was washed away with the Flood waters which covered the earth for like a year.

I never read anything offically mentioning that the GoE is gone, but my thoughts are based on Genesis’ description of the Flood.

 

[Madaglan]

Everything on earth was washed away with the Flood waters which covered the earth for like a year.

I never read anything offically mentioning that the GoE is gone, but my thoughts are based on Genesis’ description of the Flood.

Ok, I thought perhaps you read it in one of the Fathers. It makes sense though.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

The Catechism of Trent in Article V mentions a “fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth.”
Source: catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/ApostlesCreed05.shtml

The Catechism of Trent situates this as one of the abodes of Hell.

When my dad died in 1985, a good 400 yrs after Trent, I was given a Catholic Holy Card with a prayer on the back asking God to ease the pain of the purgatorial flames of fire my dad was burning in. This was very tramatic for a little Protestant Girl to read, I thought the card was saying that my daddy went to hell, since there is only Fire in hell. My mom explained that it was a Catholic belief and I didn’t need to worry about him burning in hell for all eternity, that his suffering had ended after his death. He’d been dying from lung cancer since before I was born, only he didn’t know it until 3 yrs before his death.

I say this only to show that even 500 years after Ferra-Florence and 400 years after Trent, the Roman Catholic Church was still going strong with it’s teachings and practices of belief in Purgatory being a Fire.

 

[dvdjs]

OK then dvdjs…
.

What to do with this post, Andrew Phillip?

First you ignore every question that I asked you, and resist acknowledging every error that I pointed out, then you try to shift from a defense of the very aggressive posture that you adopted, without support, in your first post to the thread, to trying to tell me what to post. LOL. I don’t think so. I am skeptical about your interest in learning anything here. And as I said, my interest is in correcting errors posted by Eastern Christians here.

Dogma, teaching, theologioumen and actual practice are all relevant to we EOC members.

And interesting too, but only dogma is dogmatic. And only dogma is fundamental to communion. The rest? Do the ATH believers excommunicate those who call it heresy?

Also, would you mind responding to my earlier refutation about what you call the “immutability of God” - which you claim proves RCC teaching that the soul changes in Purgatory, and not Gods judgement of it? Personally, I find that argument biblically and traditionally absurd - but let’s deal with it aswell.

If you talk of the immutability of God as “what you call”, then you need to do some reading. As I said, this is probably a subtle topic that needs some real thought (Ghosty?). But you refuted nothing, you just pounded you chest, repeating claims with no support. Whatever it is that you personally find is not probative of anything.

Some quotes would be nice too - as I think i have provided quite a few more than … you.

Huh? By my count I’ve quoted two passages from teh CCC and five passages from EP authors. Can’t we even get these facts straight?

 

[dvdjs]

I say this only to show that even 500 years after Ferra-Florence and 400 years after Trent, the Roman Catholic Church was still going strong with it’s teachings and practices of belief in Purgatory being a Fire.

It is not dogmatic and was agreed as such at Florence. But it is the traditional manner of visualizing Purgatory, as duly noted in the CCC. I am sorry if that traumatized you more that other enduring punishments and direful torments.

 

[nsper7]

As a new Catholic who has looked a little into the Orthodox Church before, my biggest question is:

How do the Orthodox address their separation from the Petrine See? If St. Peter and his Papacy are the Rock that the Church is built on, how can the Orthodox reject the Pope’s authority? How could the Ecumenical Patriarch excommunicate the Pope?

I ask this question honestly, not simply to be argumentative. Like I said, it is the biggest question for me.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

All right then Dvdjs…

As you please… but for the record, I have answered every question you have asked - which actually amounts to me correcting your flawed understanding of EOC teaching.

I have also corrected certain misconceptions you have about the teachings of the Roman and Byzantine Catholic Churches re purgatory.

Actually, your posts have not worked to convince any EO reader of the truth of what you say - and caused a few RC readers to question it too.

Your ‘say so’ is very far from enough - as I (and other EO posts) have shown.

Our differences with Roman teaching on purgatory have nothing to do with protestantism or sola scriptura. We are not as ‘Romeaphobic’ as many protestants are regarding what happens to souls after death.

Our EO concept of souls being “asleep” is not the Protestant “soul sleep” or “conditional immortality” doctrine as i have already explained - with quotes etc…

What is clear, is that you apply a very different standard to the way you argue, than those you expect of the Orthodox.

Here are some main points of EO difference with the RCC on Hades/ Purgatory:

***1. The soul is not changed by spending time in Hades.

1. Only God’s judgment of a soul may change whilst the soul is in Hades.
2. There is no temporary purifying fire in Hades - only eternal fire of Hell, in Hell.
3. God’s judgement is not immutable - and never has been, which is why we pray for the dead.
4. Souls are not ‘concious’ of their purification in Hades, and cannot participate in such purification - there is no such thing as “passive purification”. Any soul purification requires active participation of that soul - during life.

5a. Souls are asleep in Hades in the sense that they “rest” there in the Presence (light), or outside of the Presence (darkness). Torment in Hades is not a redemptive punishment.

5b. Souls are also aware of prayers said on their behalf by the living.

1. There is no such thing as partial or conditional forgiveness - once God forgives, it’s final and he forgets the sin.
2. There are souls in Heaven who have committed all manner of sin which has been forgiven and forgotten by God.
3. Souls are not at large once resting in Hades - cannot visit the earthly plane or communicate with the living.
4. Before resting in Hades, souls may be at large for between 3 and 40 days.***

Dvdjs… if you wish to discuss or debate the details, feel free. Otherwise I’m very happy to do what the Byzantine Catholics did when they joined the Roman Catholic Church - Like them, I’m happy to “Agree to Disagree” about purgatory - and not debate it with you further if that helps.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister SMM,

When my dad died in 1985, a good 400 yrs after Trent, I was given a Catholic Holy Card with a prayer on the back asking God to ease the pain of the purgatorial flames of fire my dad was burning in. This was very tramatic for a little Protestant Girl to read, I thought the card was saying that my daddy went to hell, since there is only Fire in hell. My mom explained that it was a Catholic belief and I didn’t need to worry about him burning in hell for all eternity, that his suffering had ended after his death. He’d been dying from lung cancer since before I was born, only he didn’t know it until 3 yrs before his death.

I say this only to show that even 500 years after Ferra-Florence and 400 years after Trent, the Roman Catholic Church was still going strong with it’s teachings and practices of belief in Purgatory being a Fire.

Please stop already. This is as valid as Catholics making a big deal about the Eastern Orthodox theologoumenon on Toll Houses. In fact, there are certain places in EO’xy that teach this, and with very dogmatic fervor. But there are many who deny the whole teaching.

Purgatorial fire is on EXACTLY the same level as the EO’s Toll Houses - it is not something worth discussing, especially to Eastern and Oriental Catholics. Let’s move on and discuss what really matters, and forget about the theologoumenon in each others’ Churches, OK?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Hi nsper7…

It’s a good question.

Their were five Bishops of the ancient Church - Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. In 1054, the Bishop of Rome ‘excommunicated’ the others. in response, the others ‘excommunicated’ the Bishop of Rome.

The fundamental dispute was that the other Bishops refused to accept the Supreme Authority of the Roman Bishop in all matters Temporal and Spiritual.

The understanding of the other Bishops (and the whole Christian Church for the first 1000 years) was that Christ did not give the keys of heaven, or any special authority to Apostle Peter personally - but to all Apostles equally (and thus to the whole Church). The rock of the Church was not therefore Peter himself, but the faith in Christ which he expressed, common to all Apostles, and upon which the Church was to be built.

The other Bishops understood that Apostle Peter did indeed preach in Rome, but he also preached in Antioch. That being the case - a “Petrine See” or similar status was not recognised by the majority of Bishops in the same way the Roman Bishop claimed it. Any “Petrine See” might also have been established in Antioch - but rightly, was not claimed by that Bishop.

When this occured, all Bishops governed the Church by consensus, there was no official office of “Pope” and no Bishop of the Church was given “infallability” or supreme authority over the others in all matters Spiritual and Temporal. The “keys of Heaven” were understood not to belong to any individual, but to the whole Church. The Bishop (or Patriarch) of Constantinople was given the title of “First Among Equals” - and allowed some administrative powers over the other Bishops.

So from the perspective of the ancient Church, the Bishop of Rome left the communion of the other Bishops - today the Eastern Orthodox Church - and not the other way around.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

The Catechism of Trent in Article V mentions a “fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth.”
Source: catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/ApostlesCreed05.shtml

The Catechism of Trent situates this as one of the abodes of Hell.

As I stated, purgatorial fire is not mentioned in the dogmatic decrees of Trent. Simply put, purgatorial fire is a mere theologoumenon in the life of the Catholic Church as a whole. And no single catechism has the authority of dogma. They can contain dogma, but they may also contain other matters. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is a standard for the Latin Church, not the entire Catholic Church.

What do you think of my comments to sister SingleMomMonica in my previous post?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[nsper7]

Hi nsper7…

It’s a good question.

Their were five Bishops of the ancient Church - Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. In 1054, the Bishop of Rome ‘excommunicated’ the others. in response, the others ‘excommunicated’ the Bishop of Rome.

The fundamental dispute was that the other Bishops refused to accept the Supreme Authority of the Roman Bishop in all matters Temporal and Spiritual.

The understanding of the other Bishops (and the whole Christian Church for the first 1000 years) was that Christ did not give the keys of heaven, or any special authority to Apostle Peter personally - but to all Apostles equally (and thus to the whole Church). The rock of the Church was not therefore Peter himself, but the faith in Christ which he expressed, common to all Apostles, and upon which the Church was to be built.

The other Bishops understood that Apostle Peter did indeed preach in Rome, but he also preached in Antioch. That being the case - a “Petrine See” or similar status was not recognised by the majority of Bishops in the same way the Roman Bishop claimed it. Any “Petrine See” might also have been established in Antioch - but rightly, was not claimed by that Bishop.

When this occured, all Bishops governed the Church by consensus, there was no official office of “Pope” and no Bishop of the Church was given “infallability” or supreme authority over the others in all matters Spiritual and Temporal. The “keys of Heaven” were understood not to belong to any individual, but to the whole Church. The Bishop (or Patriarch) of Constantinople was given the title of “First Among Equals” - and allowed some administrative powers over the other Bishops.

So from the perspective of the ancient Church, the Bishop of Rome left the communion of the other Bishops - today the Eastern Orthodox Church - and not the other way around.

Are there any articles on this that really examine the history of the issue? For me, it was history and a view that the Catholic Church preceded all others that caused me to swim the Tiber (I was a happy, perhaps blissfully ignorant is the better phrase, Anglican before this).