Eastern Orthodoxy and Purgatory, Immaculate Conception and Infallibility

[TP2]

That which is lacking at birth is the “stain of original sin” in the Latin terms. The consequences of “the original sin of Adam and Eve” inherited by being human still remain (we are inflicted), and there is no personal sin in the infant.

It is not necessary to do that which is not needed, so infants are baptised to give the gifts which are lacking. It may not come as a surprise that infant baptism is done that infants can become the dwelling places of the Spirit.

Saint John Chrysotsom writes in his Baptismal Instruction 3:6:

The preservation of the Blessed Virgin Mary was that she was endowed with these gifts from the first moment of her conception.

Excellent examination!!

 

[TP2]

It seems you don’t know what it means to be outside of time. If you pray for a person that has died, God, being outside of time, can make your prayer efficacious before the time that the person died. He could choose to bestow a little extra Grace last Tuesday, for example. Where the soul “is” is irrelavent.

In any case, that is somewhat academic, because that is not how most Orthodox understand it as far as I know - many (all?) believe that souls after death awaits the final judgement. Some even seem to think there may be some sort of purification. But they reject the idea of making this doctrine rather than pious opinion, and the need to “pay off” a debt of temporal sin, or that we can pay off someone else’s debt or have it excused based on a treasury of merit.

The OP said that he wanted to show that the OC actually believed all the doctrines that the CC does. That is clearly not true.

It doesn’t matter where you are… Outside of time…Use whatever term you want. If it doesn’t equal H E A V E N, you need to be purified meaning prayed for meaning Purgatory…

Why is it everytime The Catholic Church “DEFINES” something and it is practiced the same way, that definition comes under attack? For the sake of? Let’s keep it simple and clear not play word games. “Outside of Time”? Does that mean “HEAVEN”? Cuz unless you say YES to that, no one needs prayers. And if you say no to that, it means Purgatory which is also “OUTSIDE OF TIME”…

You can’t have it both ways. Awaiting Final Judgement? Not everyone. Remember, Orthodox continue to declare people as Saints already in heaven. So that should answer that question, meaning for the rest of us there has to be a purification or else there’s Hell. Maybe because of such confusion there is a reason Jesus gave Peter the keys of The Kingdom to “Open and Close”… so as to settle these disputes when they arise so that people can believe that Truth is still TRUE. Not 99.9%… Just 100%. Jesus didn’t suffer and die on a Cross as the God-man and leave us guessing…

 

[josephdaniel29]

Nice loophole, I think. You say that person is made a Saint because they reflect the -]Councils/-] faith of The church?

Correct.

Who decides that?

The Church.

Who can measure by The Church’s Faith in Absolute certainty that by a Council’s standards that person is in Heaven??

The Church can.

What else can a bishop decide using that line of thought?

Bishops don’t “decide” anything, they only recognize what the Church already holds.

Maybe that someone was not a True Orthodox Christian?

You either hold the True Faith or you don’t. It doesn’t take a bishop to figure that out.

Your Bishops still have to make that decision and that decision is called an infallble one.

As I’ve already explained no bishop is infallible, only the Church is infallible.

How else can anyone be sure?

Sure of what?

If a bishop can claim someone is in Heaven because of point “A”, how is it that he can claim to be able to claim he is 100% certain that person really did?

A bishop can “claim” someone is in heaven because the Church has already decided it is so.

**Explain how an EO bishop can make it certain someone is in heaven, unless he exercises Infallibilty in that moment short of receiving a revelation from that person from heaven? **

The bishop doesn’t make it certain, the Holy Spirit makes it certain by revealing it to the Church. The bishop simply formally recognizes what the Church already believes.

When anyone can declare anything “is” in heaven, that’s called an act of infallibilty only in your church ironically any bishop can make that declaration… What a paradigm? So how do you mean “NO”?

I’ve already explained this. See above.

When a bishop declares in your Church that a person is in Heaven, what do you call that? A maybe? A Possibility? How about “Infallibly”? Sounds more clear. Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? Or else why do you declare anyone in heaven? Either the Orthodox get special revelations or it exercises Infallibilty by declaring someoen is IN HEAVEN… How else??? You explain to me why I can show many Saints canonized by EO’y AFTER the 7th Ecumenical Councils. Please… I really want to know how you can be 100% certain someone is in heaven and not call it “INFALLIBILTY”?

When did I say it wasn’t infallibility? What else would I call it?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

As I’ve already explained no bishop is infallible, only the Church is infallible.

The beauty is there is one Bishop that was promised explicitly to be an infallible teacher:

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father

And you know the rest. We have the Father’s revelation that the Bishop of Rome as we know him today, the Universal Pastor and can teach infallibly from the his Chair.
*John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), <— referring to Peter only
*Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”) <— referring to Peter only

You can’t say this about any other Bishop. Sorry Charlie.

 

[Harpazo]

Why can’t the Orthodox just accept an Orthodox Tradition of Mary and Western Catholics a Western Tradition of her? Why is this so difficult? How could there be a Dormition if Mary had any personal sin? How?

Because that is insanity and spiritual schizophrenia and from many an Orthodox, it would be undeniably a precursor to the religion of the anti-Christ (the idea that we can all be one religion and believe different things).

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[mardukm]

Because that is insanity and spiritual schizophrenia and from many an Orthodox, it would be undeniably a precursor to the religion of the anti-Christ (the idea that we can all be one religion and believe different things).

Ahhhh! But are we really believing different things, or does belief in Truth automatically quench the Spiritual fruit of understanding and wisdom? That’s the million-dollar question.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TP2]

Ahhhh! But are we really believing different things, or does belief in Truth automatically quench the Spiritual fruit of understanding and wisdom? That’s the million-dollar question.

Blessings,
Marduk

How is one an Orthodox in Communion with Rome and still be EO?

 

[TP2]

Because that is insanity and spiritual schizophrenia and from many an Orthodox, it would be undeniably a precursor to the religion of the anti-Christ (the idea that we can all be one religion and believe different things).

In Christ,
Andrew

That’s not what I’m talking about in that snippet… I am not talking about spiritual relativism. I am speaking of an example like believing in the Dormition of Mary and The Assumption of Mary. Neither teaching (Tradition) takes away from the other. Catholics do not say in this definition that Mary didn’t die physically. It just means she was Assumed Body and Soul into heaven and how that happened is a Mystery. I am sure The Dormition is believed in the same way. I don’t think it is spelled out because my question then would be, “Were you there”? Faith to be believed does not have to have a black an white answer. The fact is both the East and West believe Mary assumed into heaven Body and Soul. Simple enough? Why make things hard?

 

[TP2]

The beauty is there is one Bishop that was promised explicitly to be an infallible teacher:

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father

And you know the rest. We have the Father’s revelation that the Bishop of Rome as we know him today, the Universal Pastor and can teach infallibly from the his Chair.
*John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), <— referring to Peter only
*Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”) <— referring to Peter only

You can’t say this about any other Bishop. Sorry Charlie.

You said it, brother!

 

[mardukm]

The beauty is there is one Bishop that was promised explicitly to be an infallible teacher:

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father

And you know the rest. We have the Father’s revelation that the Bishop of Rome as we know him today, the Universal Pastor and can teach infallibly from the his Chair.
*John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), <— referring to Peter only
*Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”) <— referring to Peter only

You can’t say this about any other Bishop. Sorry Charlie.

To avoid misunderstanding, I feel the following clarifications from V1 should be emphasized:

1. The infallibility of the Pope is not different from the infallibility of the Church.
2. The infallibility of the Pope is not personal, but belongs to the Magisterium that is shared by the College of bishops.
3. The Pope, when teaching infallibly, is not solitary, but is always united to the Church.

A further clarifications from V2:

1. Any bishop teaches infallibly on a matter of Faith and morals that the College of bishops, whether united or in different places, teaches universally and definitively.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TP2]

Correct.

The Church.

The Church can.

Bishops don’t “decide” anything, they only recognize what the Church already holds.

You either hold the True Faith or you don’t. It doesn’t take a bishop to figure that out.

As I’ve already explained no bishop is infallible, only the Church is infallible.

Sure of what?

A bishop can “claim” someone is in heaven because the Church has already decided it is so.

The bishop doesn’t make it certain, the Holy Spirit makes it certain by revealing it to the Church. The bishop simply formally recognizes what the Church already believes.

I’ve already explained this. See above.

When did I say it wasn’t infallibility? What else would I call it?

The Church isn’t making that decision. A Bishop is and he is not making it under the banner of ALL of EO’y just his segment of EO’y which really makes him A UNIVERSAL BISHOP, a claim you make on the Papacy irony of ironies.

If your against Infallibility you would put your money where your mouth is and acknowledge you use the Charism, too. Otherwise what your saying is that TODAY EO’y has the infallible right to make Saints. Period. Exclamation point.

Oh, and now you say that Eastern Orthodo Church is Infallible. Who exercises that Infallibilty in the Church? You? All the members? C’mon… stop it already! The bishop here just had a canonization ceremony in a byzantine Orth. Church. Don’t play the loophole game with me. A group of us were there and watched the whole ceremony. The Bishop called out the name of the person to be declared the Saint. he exercised Infallibility! Spooked?

 

[TP2]

The Orthodox say it is The Church that is Infallible. I say? In what matters? I thought the first 7 Councils covered it. I guess not as I am reading some of these posts. I wonder playing the devils advocate for a second, why on one hand the Orthodox don’t accept the Infallibility of The Pope of Rome but on the other can by fiat acknowledge a dead person to be in heaven. ** Interesting**.

 

[trophybearer]

The Church isn’t making that decision. A Bishop is and he is not making it under the banner of ALL of EO’y just his segment of EO’y which really makes him A UNIVERSAL BISHOP, a claim you make on the Papacy irony of ironies.

If your against Infallibility you would put your money where your mouth is and acknowledge you use the Charism, too. Otherwise what your saying is that TODAY EO’y has the infallible right to make Saints. Period. Exclamation point.

Oh, and now you say that Eastern Orthodo Church is Infallible. Who exercises that Infallibilty in the Church? You? All the members? C’mon… stop it already! The bishop here just had a canonization ceremony in a byzantine Orth. Church. Don’t play the loophole game with me. A group of us were there and watched the whole ceremony. The Bishop called out the name of the person to be declared the Saint. he exercised Infallibility! Spooked?

“If your against Infallibility you would put your money where your mouth is and acknowledge you use the Charism, too. Otherwise what your saying is that TODAY EO’y has the infallible right to make Saints. Period. Exclamation point. ”

The only thing that’s spooky is your arrogance and inability to grasp the simplest of concepts relating to the Orthodox Church. Your grammar is also pretty consistently terrible for someone who claims to be a priest and have a college education. Then again, you aren’t really a priest, are you? You just play one on the internet. I’m still waiting for that documentation… you are obligated to provide it.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The Church isn’t making that decision. A Bishop is and he is not making it under the banner of ALL of EO’y just his segment of EO’y which really makes him A UNIVERSAL BISHOP, a claim you make on the Papacy irony of ironies.

If your against Infallibility you would put your money where your mouth is and acknowledge you use the Charism, too. Otherwise what your saying is that TODAY EO’y has the infallible right to make Saints. Period. Exclamation point.

Oh, and now you say that Eastern Orthodo Church is Infallible. Who exercises that Infallibilty in the Church? You? All the members? C’mon… stop it already! The bishop here just had a canonization ceremony in a byzantine Orth. Church. Don’t play the loophole game with me. A group of us were there and watched the whole ceremony. The Bishop called out the name of the person to be declared the Saint. he exercised Infallibility! Spooked?

Listen TP I’ve explained this to you as best I know how and I have no desire to argue with you. Simply because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s a “game.” The reality is you and I are approaching this from an entirely different world view. I will give you a link that I provided to another poster earlier addressing this very issue. It is from a book by Fr Sergius Bulgakov titled The Orthodox Church. This is the chapter is titled “The Hierarchy” and it explains very thoroughly the nature of the hierarchy and the infallibility of the Church. It is perhaps one of the most important writings to ever address the subject from an Orthodox perspective. I don’t expect you to agree with it but it will give you a much better understanding of where we are coming from.

Link

 

[Harpazo]

The beauty is there is one Bishop that was promised explicitly to be an infallible teacher:

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father

And you know the rest. We have the Father’s revelation that the Bishop of Rome as we know him today, the Universal Pastor and can teach infallibly from the his Chair.
*John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), <— referring to Peter only
*Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”) <— referring to Peter only

You can’t say this about any other Bishop. Sorry Charlie.

The whole idea of a “Universal Pastor” is only from the last millennium, after the split a la Unam Sanctam.

Orthodox have always understood the St. John 21 passage as Christ forgiving St. Peter’s denial of him (St. Peter denied Christ thrice, after the resurrection Christ confirmed St. Peter’s love for Christ).

In regards to the passage from St. Luke, I have understood that Christ was preparing St. Peter for apostolic labors. Are we to believe that Christ did not do the same for the other 10 (and later 11th)? If He only prayed for St. Peter, why did St. Peter not go out on his own to spread the Gospel and leave the others in Jerusalem?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[jonnyws]

It seems to me that we all agree that the Body of Christ is infallible when it comes to matters of faith. We also all agree that it is possible for a Bishop to state that it is the belief of the Church that something is infallible, not by their own authority but because it is infallible by virtue of Christ’s divine nature in his Body, the Church. The argument happening in this thread therefore seems rather redundant as what we should in fact be debating is why, in the West, the proclamation of the faith of the Church (which is infallible) is the duty of the Bishop of Rome whereas in the East it is the duty of all Bishops.

The matter in question seems to be one of Hierarchy. The East maintains that all Bishops are equal and does not choose to speak through one Bishop in particular. The West also holds that all Bishops are equal but has chosen to structure its hierarchy in such a way that it places the Roman Pontiff above all other Bishops in earthly authority. I believe this has a lot to do with the fact that after the Great Schism the West was left with only one traditional Patriarchate whilst the East was left with many. The Universal Church of the first millennium always looked to the Patriarchates to make difficult decisions and act as arbitrators in disputes. Given that the West was left with only one ancient See of authority and one that was greatly respected along with Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria in the early days of Christianity it is only logical that they should choose to form a monolithic Hierarchy under that See. The East on the other hand was left with many and so carried on looking to many See’s for authority; some to Constantinople, some to Antioch, some to Moscow etc.

The respect due to Rome in the First Millennia is undeniable and I have never met an Eastern Christian that will deny that. I believe it was once viewed as the first See amongst many equal Sees, I would say that that was for socio-political reasons rather than any teaching of Christ. The West when separated from the East came to understand Rome in terms of Supremacy and Infallibility because it was the only See left to make such decisions. In conclusion I would say that the doctrines concerning the Pope that exist in the Western Church are wholly valid for the Western Church but cannot be imposed on the East. I also believe that Papal infallibility, when understood as a confirmation of the faith of the Western Church by its hierarchical head, is not incompatible with Eastern teaching as long as it is understood to simply be a particular form of expression of the infallible faith of the Church in the West. If reunification was to take place I believe Rome would have to make quite clear that it is the way in which it chooses to express its infallibility inside of Western Christendom and is not a doctrine to be imposed on a united Church.

 

[StrawberryJam]

“If your against Infallibility you would put your money where your mouth is and acknowledge you use the Charism, too. Otherwise what your saying is that TODAY EO’y has the infallible right to make Saints. Period. Exclamation point. ”

The only thing that’s spooky is your arrogance and inability to grasp the simplest of concepts relating to the Orthodox Church. Your grammar is also pretty consistently terrible for someone who claims to be a priest and have a college education. Then again, you aren’t really a priest, are you? You just play one on the internet. I’m still waiting for that documentation… you are obligated to provide it.

Excuse me for butting in here on this discussion, but perhaps you may have forgotten that a personal attack is not allowed on this forum.
I have never seen a priest spoken to this way on this forum before.
If you are skeptical of the poster’s title, you should take that up with administration who would no doubt know of their status. I do not believe that any priest posting here NEEDS to cowtow to your demands of proof of their status.
You can understand why can’t you?
Please use some common sense and manners when spouting off. It really is upsetting to see a priest being treated so poorly on a Catholic forum by the EO posters here.
And, I was silly enough to want to go to Serb Fest this year, thinking it would help me gain insight on the EO.
I have seen all I need to see here.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Orthodox have always understood the St. John 21 passage as Christ forgiving St. Peter’s denial of him (St. Peter denied Christ thrice, after the resurrection Christ confirmed St. Peter’s love for Christ).

I don’t doubt you that certain Orthodox Bishops/Priests/Preachers have said this and in a certain, moral sense, that is a valid meaning but it is not the literal meaning. If it would not be too much trouble, perhaps you could quote a few sources from various Orthodox sources which support the meaning you put forward. God bless.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

If He only prayed for St. Peter, why did St. Peter not go out on his own to spread the Gospel and leave the others in Jerusalem?

In Christ,
Andrew

I’m not sure why one would lead to this conclusion, as if it would have been more worthy than the life Mar Patros lived? Either way, you can’t improve on the Holy Spirit’s plan for you so I say that yes, He prayed for Peter alone in this special way, just as he gave Peter alone the Keys and just as He charged Peter alone in that unique manner, to Shepard His sheep. Just because He (Christ) granted Primacy to Peter does not, in any way, make the other Bishops jobs are less important (Matthew 18, same command, no keys). Sadly, this human side, probably plays a role in the dis-unity between the Churches.

 

[trophybearer]

Excuse me for butting in here on this discussion, but perhaps you may have forgotten that a personal attack is not allowed on this forum.
I have never seen a priest spoken to this way on this forum before.
If you are skeptical of the poster’s title, you should take that up with administration who would no doubt know of their status. I do not believe that any priest posting here NEEDS to cowtow to your demands of proof of their status.
You can understand why can’t you?
Please use some common sense and manners when spouting off. It really is upsetting to see a priest being treated so poorly on a Catholic forum by the EO posters here.
And, I was silly enough to want to go to Serb Fest this year, thinking it would help me gain insight on the EO.
I have seen all I need to see here.

Don’t let me stop you from going to a Serbian festival by all means. I certainly don’t claim to represent the Serbian people. If you’d read some of the nasty, insulting provocations posted here by this man who claims to be a priest you might understand why I doubt his identity. I see nothing in his profile to indicate he is a priest. I don’t see why the forum admins would know any more regarding the authenticity of his claim since he apparently won’t even name his Bishop. Asking a priest the name of their Bishop is not a personal attack, nor is it disrespectful. If the admins know something more than I do regarding his status they could surely make it official on his profile. Until then I will assume he is a layman, since he will not provide credentials and nothing in his profile indicates his status as a priest. If he is infact a priest, he behaves unlike any priest I have ever met.