Eastern Orthodoxy and Purgatory, Immaculate Conception and Infallibility

[Leo_The_Great]

TP2, I am a baptized Roman Catholic and yet I am theologically in my heart Eastern.

I would like to respectfully submit that you do not know what you are talking about.

None of us fully do either though, so don’t feel to hurt:

You have not entered into the Orthodox Phronema, mindset, paradigm, presuppositions.

You are making faulty and rather embarassing comparisons that are being formed by a mind that foes not uderstand the intricacies of East vs western thought.

DO you know the difference in E v W logic and presuppositions have completely different starting points and end points?

For example, Latin Theology starts with the absolute conviction of God’s existence as a Substance (A first Cause), Fleshes it out to Personal (The Causer must beintelligent for intelligent things to exist, so personal) and so they don’t end up with Plato or Aristotles god, take God’s attribute of love and use it as a foundation for explaining the trinity (GOd is love. But love requires an object and exchange. Created things did not always exist, so God must have genuinely loved Himself before the creation of the World, and He who was loved was begotten by the very choice of the Father to love him. SO the Father loves the Son, the Son, who is the image of the Father loves him back, and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the son in a single spiration as from a single principle.)

But in Greek (Byzantine) Theology, we start with the conviction of the truth of Revelation, without a need to set up a philosophical framework. For example, THat there is a trinity is fundamental. Now looking INTO the trinity will reveal to us the characteristics of the persons: i.e. their Same Substance will and energy.

See, it’s reverse.

YOu understand why half these people are probgably laughing at you?

P.S. Splitting hairs doesn’t exist, whether right by a hair’s width or a mile, truth is truth.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father TP2,

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?

The Church as people of God, not just a bishop (pope or otherwise), is always involved in the act of canonization. Brother Josephdaniel is correct that the bishop (pope or otherwise) acts as spokesman for the Church in the process of canonization.

Think about it - no pope or bishop has ever canonized a saint that did not have a prior cult among the people.

Also, I don’t understand your snide comment “Who exercises that infallibility? You? All the members?” Yes, Father, the Church as a whole indeed possesses infallibility, and its exercise is not limited to the Pope. Perhaps you have forgotten the Catholic principle of sensus fidelium?

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[TP2]

Dearest Father TP2,

The Church as people of God, not just a bishop (pope or otherwise), is always involved in the act of canonization. Brother Josephdaniel is correct that the bishop (pope or otherwise) acts as spokesman for the Church in the process of canonization.

Think about it - no pope or bishop has ever canonized a saint that did not have a prior cult among the people.

Also, I don’t understand your snide comment “Who exercises that infallibility? You? All the members?” Yes, Father, the Church as a whole indeed possesses infallibility, and its exercise is not limited to the Pope. Perhaps you have forgotten the Catholic principle of sensus fidelium?

Humbly,
Marduk

Their is nothing "snide’ about what I said. This is a place for debate, isn’t it? I am merely pointing out that as Orthodox constantly rant against Papal Infallibility yet their own Bishops are the ONLY ones that can make a declaration that a person IS in heaven. That is nothing short of an Infallible Statement. Just because a group of people have cult like devotion to a dead person doesn’t give them the Power of binding and Loosing, does it? All I am “sniding” about if you choose such a word is to say that I was at several of these events and it was ONLY The Bishop that made a declaration from among the people that such a person IS now in heaven. My only assertion is that either he was given a revelation or he made the act Infallibly. There is no other way. Why are we even arguing such a silly point? I don’t get it. The process that is carried out by the Bishop is Infallible. There is no revelation.

 

[TP2]

TP2, I am a baptized Roman Catholic and yet I am theologically in my heart Eastern.

I would like to respectfully submit that you do not know what you are talking about.

None of us fully do either though, so don’t feel to hurt:

You have not entered into the Orthodox Phronema, mindset, paradigm, presuppositions.

You are making faulty and rather embarassing comparisons that are being formed by a mind that foes not uderstand the intricacies of East vs western thought.

DO you know the difference in E v W logic and presuppositions have completely different starting points and end points?

For example, Latin Theology starts with the absolute conviction of God’s existence as a Substance (A first Cause), Fleshes it out to Personal (The Causer must beintelligent for intelligent things to exist, so personal) and so they don’t end up with Plato or Aristotles god, take God’s attribute of love and use it as a foundation for explaining the trinity (GOd is love. But love requires an object and exchange. Created things did not always exist, so God must have genuinely loved Himself before the creation of the World, and He who was loved was begotten by the very choice of the Father to love him. SO the Father loves the Son, the Son, who is the image of the Father loves him back, and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the son in a single spiration as from a single principle.)

But in Greek (Byzantine) Theology, we start with the conviction of the truth of Revelation, without a need to set up a philosophical framework. For example, THat there is a trinity is fundamental. Now looking INTO the trinity will reveal to us the characteristics of the persons: i.e. their Same Substance will and energy.

See, it’s reverse.

YOu understand why half these people are probgably laughing at you?

P.S. Splitting hairs doesn’t exist, whether right by a hair’s width or a mile, truth is truth.

I’m glad you find all this humorous. People can laugh. They laughed at Christ too. I am only presenting factual and clearly concise Doctrines that are believed by Orthodox whether they want to accept them by definition or not. I am here trying to clarify and instruct that these 3 Teachings are believed by the Orthodox every day. You want to laugh? Laugh. I am not here for yours or anyone’s Polemic or Philosophical arguments. I am simply stating incongruous facts. I am trying to exercise some sensiblities where I don’t expect to find too many desirables. If you are a “Roman Catholic” you would see what I am saying and not lambast me. I am not saying that The Orthodox have to believe in Roman Definitions of Faith. I am simply pointing out that they already do. I will pray for you. Since i do not know any better, at least I know how to pray, ok?

Peace!

 

[TP2]

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.

Please give me one nasty provocative post I have ever made other than present Truths I have experienced with Orthodox Priests and share them here since I thought that is what we are asked to do in sharing and holding dialogues together. I don’t need to present any credentials to you or anybody. I understand that to ask such matter is against the rules of the forum. **Since you say I am not a priest, is that your personal opinion or an infallible one? I don’t understand why you do not discuss the topics but rather choose to deride me instead. ** I bless you in the name of Christ and pray for you.

Peace!

 

[TP2]

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.

I appreciate your kindness and probably the only peaceful and sensible approach to my Thread. It is not the Orthodox Bishops who argue this way. It is an unfortunate small number of Orthodox faithful who choose to use argumentation over discussions. It took even Orthodox representatives to speak how “Unfounded and Unacceptable” the Orthodox Faithful’s provocations were “in providing false and misleading information”. This was said by the Orthodox Representatives at a meeting on Papal Primacy. Remember… The Devil hates Unity. He will use any slick words to divide and conquer, which actually means… “Diabolic”…

The Clip from The CNS:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0904739.htm

According to a statement released by the dialogue commission Oct. 23, the commission’s Orthodox members discussed "the negative reactions to the dialogue by certain Orthodox circles and unanimously considered them as totally unfounded and unacceptable, providing false and misleading information."

The Orthodox delegates*** “reaffirmed that the dialogue continues with the decision of all the Orthodox churches and is pursued with faithfulness to the truth and the tradition of the church,”*** said the statement released in Cyprus and at the Vatican.

 

[TP2]

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.

That is not true. In the Catholic Church The Pope speaking on matters of Faith and Morals exercises the Charism Given to Peter by Christ solely through The Keys, “Ex Cathedra”…meaning from “The Chair” Infallibly. And, likewise, all the bishops who speak to the same Teachings in union with the Pope, speak Infallibly as well.

Your understanding of the Early Patriarchates (Eastern) is wrong. They looked to Rome to settle issues as you can clearly see in my links provided below, if you just took some time to do so.

Constantinople

**St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387) **

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles,** that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.** (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

Peter, the foundation of the Church,** the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles**, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock …he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)

He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ’ ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: ‘Simon, Simon, etc.’ (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, **He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. **(Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

Yes, NOT only of “That Throne”, “but of the whole World…” ----- Do you believe all this teaching spoken by your Patriarch St. Chrysostom?

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father TP2,

Their is nothing "snide’ about what I said. This is a place for debate, isn’t it? I am merely pointing out that as Orthodox constantly rant against Papal Infallibility yet their own Bishops are the ONLY ones that can make a declaration that a person IS in heaven. That is nothing short of an Infallible Statement. Just because a group of people have cult like devotion to a dead person doesn’t give them the Power of binding and Loosing, does it? All I am “sniding” about if you choose such a word is to say that I was at several of these events and it was ONLY The Bishop that made a declaration from among the people that such a person IS now in heaven. My only assertion is that either he was given a revelation or he made the act Infallibly. There is no other way. Why are we even arguing such a silly point? I don’t get it. The process that is carried out by the Bishop is Infallible. There is no revelation.

Actually, a canonization by a local bishop is not deemed an infallible declaration. Only a canonization made by the Pope can be regarded as infallible because it is - like all Truth - universal. An acknowledgement of public veneration by a local bishop cannot be regarded as infallible for the precise reason that such recognitions are relevant only for a local Church.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[TP2]

Dearest Father TP2,

Actually, a canonization by a local bishop is not deemed an infallible declaration. Only a canonization made by the Pope can be regarded as infallible because it is - like all Truth - universal. An acknowledgement of public veneration by a local bishop cannot be regarded as infallible for the precise reason that such recognitions are relevant only for a local Church.

Humbly,
Marduk

Ok, what does the canonization mean, then, if not as an infallible one? My point is not semantics. It is about the outcome and that is a “DEAD” person is made a Saint. Meaning that he/she IS in heaven. How is that NOT an Infallible pronouncement? What other means is there to know for certain that this person is in Heaven other than via a direct revelation? Please explain?

 

[mardukm]

Dear Father TP2,

Ok, what does the canonization mean, then, if not as an infallible one? My point is not semantics. It is about the outcome and that is a “DEAD” person is made a Saint. Meaning that he/she IS in heaven. How is that NOT an Infallible pronouncement? What other means is there to know for certain that this person is in Heaven other than via a direct revelation? Please explain?

First of all, canonization does not “make” a dead person a saint. Canonization is a recognition of sainthood, not a creation of sainthood.

Secondly, I have doubts that what you saw was a canonization. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, canonizations are only done by the Synod. I am almost certain that the same is true in the other Orthodox Churches (Eastern or Oriental). If you saw a bishop presiding over a formal declaration, I suspect he was only relaying the decision of his Synod.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Dear Father TP2,

First of all, canonization does not “make” a dead person a saint. Canonization is a recognition of sainthood, not a creation of sainthood.

Thank you.

It also bears mentioning that for over 1000 years the western church followed a very similar practice to all of the eastern churches, canonizations were local.

So yes, the See at Rome had a calendar, but so did every other major See in the west as well as the east.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear Father TP2,

First of all, canonization does not “make” a dead person a saint. Canonization is a recognition of sainthood, not a creation of sainthood.

Secondly, I have doubts that what you saw was a canonization. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, canonizations are only done by the Synod. I am almost certain that the same is true in the other Orthodox Churches (Eastern or Oriental). If you saw a bishop presiding over a formal declaration, I suspect he was only relaying the decision of his Synod.

Humbly,
Marduk

You are correct, it is the Holy Synod that formally glorifies a saint. Also as you have pointed out that person already has a popular cult prior to the formal recognition by the Holy Synod. A great example of this is Matushka Olga Michael. She is venerated as a saint by many people especially in Alaska and Canada. She even has icons written of her. We are permitted to venerate her and pray to her as a saint.

Matushka Olga was a very holy woman. There is no doubt she is a saint. The Church has already spoken on the matter and now we await the formal recognition by the Holy Synod. The Synod is already making preparations to formally glorify her and I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened within a year.

In Christ,
Joe

 

[Aramis]

Ok, what does the canonization mean, then, if not as an infallible one?

“added to the canon,” or more literally, “added to the approved list.”

It is not unheard of to decanonize someone; the east doesn’t do so often, and Rome hasn’t done so since Trent (as far as I know); part of the post-trent reconciliations in the west was merging and purging local calendars, and restricting the term Saint from local use.

East and west do have significant differences in how things work. Even the Catholic East.

And the Catholic understanding of “Blessed ___” and “Venerable ___” are all part of the EO understanding of “Saint,” there being no subordinate steps other than the local cultus.

To the EO, the system of “Local Canonization = Venerable” “worldwide permission of cultus=Blessed” and “binding declaration=saint” is alien; their canonization system uses saint for all three, and hasn’t had a binding declaration of a saint in centuries; all post-schism orthodox “saints” are in catholic terms Venerable or Blessed not Saint.

The Orthodox term “venerable” means a monastic who is canonized… but that canonization is not infallible, nor even universal.

Also, generally, after local veneration, if there is cause, the synod takes up the issue, and if found worthy, expands the permission for the veneration of said individual to the whole of the national church, but not infallibly.

For example, Tsar St. Nikolai II and Tsarina St. Alexandria… their public cultus as martyrs is generally accepted in Russia; the patriarchal synod added them to the calendar not long ago. But there are those who point out they were not martyrs for the faith, and might even have been in heresy… and are calling for their decanonization.

One Russian Bishop allows private veneration of Rev. Fr. Grigori Rasputin; the Russian synod has not taken the issue up, but is being lobbied by some to ban his veneration on the grounds of his heteropraxis and scandalous lifestyle. And at least Tsarina Alexandra’s as well.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Looks like my post Got deleted fro inflammatory language.

HA!

Let’s see if it happens again.

TP2

I am ROman Catholic. But My heart crossed the Bosphorus long ago.

TO put it succinctly, Your wild claims about the Orthodox are based on a lack of appreciation of the completely different paradigm in which their theology occurs.

For them, theology is not a SCIENCE which can be mastered. THeology is an encounter with God which can be explained by using the terms and categories of Philosophy as HELPS and AIDS.

Scholasticism on the other hand uses these Philosophical ideas as a starting point for explaining the Faith and in most cases extrapolates many “logical” conclusions which the scriptures are then used to back up.

THat is a general explanation of the Difference.

THat being said, I do Believe something like Papal infallibility can be made palatable to Eastern ears, but you have to enter into THEIR paradigm, not impose the Latin one.

i.e. The Pope does not posses infallibility personally; it is a function of his office, because since he stands at the head of the Church, the Church is indefectable and Christ tells us to listen to our earthly leaders. THerefore, if the CHURCH recognizes a sole Bishop as the Supreme head capable of speaking on BEHALF OF THE OTHERS and according to the Sensus Fidei, or the Church’s phronema, then yes, This Bishop is excercising infallible authority, because the Church cannot apostasize.

HOWEVER! The infallibility being spoken of is not separate from the Infallibility of the Church as a whole, on the contrary, it only exists because of it and flows from it.

Also, the pope is not more than a Bishop, he is a Bishop possesing a special charism and fulfilling an office for the unity of the Church. If the popes from 1000 onward to about 1850 spent more time realizing they were serving the Church instead of ruling it, they may have solved a good many issues more…

 

[jonnyws]

Looks like my post Got deleted fro inflammatory language.

HA!

Let’s see if it happens again.

TP2

I am ROman Catholic. But My heart crossed the Bosphorus long ago.

TO put it succinctly, Your wild claims about the Orthodox are based on a lack of appreciation of the completely different paradigm in which their theology occurs.

For them, theology is not a SCIENCE which can be mastered. THeology is an encounter with God which can be explained by using the terms and categories of Philosophy as HELPS and AIDS.

Scholasticism on the other hand uses these Philosophical ideas as a starting point for explaining the Faith and in most cases extrapolates many “logical” conclusions which the scriptures are then used to back up.

THat is a general explanation of the Difference.

THat being said, I do Believe something like Papal infallibility can be made palatable to Eastern ears, but you have to enter into THEIR paradigm, not impose the Latin one.

i.e. The Pope does not posses infallibility personally; it is a function of his office, because since he stands at the head of the Church, the Church is indefectable and Christ tells us to listen to our earthly leaders. THerefore, if the CHURCH recognizes a sole Bishop as the Supreme head capable of speaking on BEHALF OF THE OTHERS and according to the Sensus Fidei, or the Church’s phronema, then yes, This Bishop is excercising infallible authority, because the Church cannot apostasize.

HOWEVER! The infallibility being spoken of is not separate from the Infallibility of the Church as a whole, on the contrary, it only exists because of it and flows from it.

Also, the pope is not more than a Bishop, he is a Bishop possesing a special charism and fulfilling an office for the unity of the Church. If the popes from 1000 onward to about 1850 spent more time realizing they were serving the Church instead of ruling it, they may have solved a good many issues more…

Spot on

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Here, I will tell you what the Orthodox consider acceptable in regards to

1: The Immaculate Conception:

 If you say to an Orthodox: Mary was conceived without the stain or guilt of original sin, which was Adams sin in the Garden, and She was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and was the highest our Human nature could attain to and never commited any personal sin, they would agree with you. Or at least that statement.

What they would object to would be that Mary’s conception in itself was a singular grace and privilege of God because, you see, in Orthodox Theology, we do not inherit the Guilt of Adam’s sin. We inherit its effects which are, in a nutshell, death. Both physical and spiritual. It is because of death and the Fear of death that we have sinned, but when we are born, we are free from all guilt of sin. Nevertheless, we are born spiritually dead, and ar ein need of baptism.

So Mary’s conception in itself is not spectacular to them, because we are all conceived free from sin. What IS amazing is that the Holy Spirit filled her with holiness from the first moment of her conception, sanctified her in the womb. But this does not displace her humanity. I would say the majority of Orthodox also believe she never sinned, but there is a minority that believe she did because she died. Death is viewed as an effect of the sin of Adam, and so some reason she must have sinned at least in some small way once, since she exhibited that she was subject to the effects of sin: death. But this view is not universal.

2nd: Purgatory. This is the easy one: THe Catholic church has defined as dogma only two aspects of purgatory:
i. Those in need of purification after death really experience it
ii. Prayer for these souls helps them become purified quicker.

The rest is theological speculation. So purgatory need not be a place, it may only be a transitional state, and who knows how time works there. The arguments as to whether the souls are punished by material fire which purifies, or spiritual fire that purifies, or whether punishment and innocence go hand in hand at all are also speculation on both parties ends. I will venture a simple synthesis however:
Those who die in God’s friendship, but are still not complete in their theosis (sanctification) undergo punishment whether harsh or light depending on the degree of sin in their life. The punishment in itself is not purifying, but repays the justice to God who declares “You will not get out until you have PAID the last penny.” But because God’s just is PERFECT, it enables his mercy, who knows all the details and culpabilities, and extenuations, etc. and so he allows the prayers we offer on earth to be of benefit to the soul of the departed person. Mark of Ephesus asked the poignant question: “What has punishment to do with innocence?” If God forgives you and declares you innocent, then why do you need to fill a debt?

This can get very nuanced, but the Orthodox view death as a continuation of the process of sanctification begun on earth. Basically, it starts on earth, is completed after death, and when you have been freed of sin, you enter into the presence of God in a limited way, and you CONTINUE to grow in holiness! See, you don’t just reach a “good enough” point and stop in God’s presence, you are constantly growing and deppening IN HIS PRESENCE. The scripture testifies that we are being transformed from glory to glory, we are eternally entering depper into the mystery of God. BUt to go DEEPER and be transformed means to leave behind the imperfect for the more perfect. SO, even in heaven, we may be freed from our sin, but not our weakness! Like the limited ability of the human mind to even begin to try and comprehend its creator! And so we are being eternally strengthened and made fast in the presence of God.

So, you see, this whole eternal process of growth, it is no wonder the Orthodox ask: “Why in the world are you Latins focusing so myopically on one point in time after death?! Namely the period immediately after death and before admission to paradise when all of eternity of becoming God(like) lies before you!”

See how it’s easy to kinda be trivial on some of these questions?

3rd Papal infallibility: I already said That. The POpes infallibility is not personal, it is official, connected to his office, he is not more than a Bishop, he simply a Bishop in a priviledged position, and His infallibility is merely an extension of the church’s infallibility and flows from it, because he is seen as the spokesman of the whole church and accepted as such. Therefore the Holy spirit CANNOT let him err, or the entire Church would defect from the faith.

 

[Vico]

…, in Orthodox Theology, we do not inherit the Guilt of Adam’s sin. We inherit its effects which are, in a nutshell, death. Both physical and spiritual. It is because of death and the Fear of death that we have sinned, but when we are born, we are free from all guilt of sin. Nevertheless, we are born spiritually dead, and are in need of baptism…

It is the same in Catholic theology, there is no personal guilt (culpa) inherited.

Below is the Latin statement from Trent on baptism and original sin, showing the phrase “reatum originalis peccati”. Note that there is no word culpa in that statement. People have been translating the Latin word reatum as “guilt of” which is not correct. See The Biblical Doctrine of Sin By James Stuart Candlish, p. 88, which states that the English word guilt is used by theologians to represent two different words, culpa and reatus, but in English literature guilt only corresponds to culpa. Latin reatus means liability or obligation to suffer punishment. He states that this practice of translating reatus as guilt has lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

Sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum
Sessio V. De Peciato Originali. p. 16

“5. Si quis per JESU Chirsti Domini nostri gratiam, quae in Baptismate confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitte negat; aut etiam afferit non tolli totum id, quod veram & propriam peccati rationem habet: sed illud dicit tantum radi, aut non imputari; anathema sit.”

This is verified today in the Catholic Catechism 405 “Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.”

 

[sidbrown]

Again, a perfect example of splitting HAIRS!!! :

Well, don’t Roman Catholics split hairs when they propose the theory of marriage annulment for a couple that has been married for twenty years and has four children. The question of a marriage annulment never came up until the husband started dating a younger and more beautiful young lady? For twenty years the marriage is fine and this question would never have come up if the husband had been faithful to the marriage. So they pharasaically split hairs and declare that there was some flaw or defect when the marriage occurred twenty years ago. Isn’t this a perfect example of splitting hairs in order to avoid telling it like it is and declaring it a divorce the way that all other Churches do.

 

[TP2]

Well, don’t Roman Catholics split hairs when they propose the theory of marriage annulment for a couple that has been married for twenty years and has four children. The question of a marriage annulment never came up until the husband started dating a younger and more beautiful young lady? For twenty years the marriage is fine and this question would never have come up if the husband had been faithful to the marriage. So they pharasaically split hairs and declare that there was some flaw or defect when the marriage occurred twenty years ago. Isn’t this a perfect example of splitting hairs in order to avoid telling it like it is and declaring it a divorce the way that all other Churches do.

No. Because The Catholic Church isn’t challenging someone else’s beliefs through the belief of “Nullity” of Marriage.

 

[TP2]

Here, I will tell you what the Orthodox consider acceptable in regards to

1: The Immaculate Conception:

 If you say to an Orthodox: Mary was conceived without the stain or guilt of original sin, which was Adams sin in the Garden, and She was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and was the highest our Human nature could attain to and never commited any personal sin, they would agree with you. Or at least that statement.

What they would object to would be that Mary’s conception in itself was a singular grace and privilege of God because, you see, in Orthodox Theology, we do not inherit the Guilt of Adam’s sin. We inherit its effects which are, in a nutshell, death. Both physical and spiritual. It is because of death and the Fear of death that we have sinned, but when we are born, we are free from all guilt of sin. Nevertheless, we are born spiritually dead, and ar ein need of baptism.

So Mary’s conception in itself is not spectacular to them, because we are all conceived free from sin. What IS amazing is that the Holy Spirit filled her with holiness from the first moment of her conception, sanctified her in the womb. But this does not displace her humanity. I would say the majority of Orthodox also believe she never sinned, but there is a minority that believe she did because she died. Death is viewed as an effect of the sin of Adam, and so some reason she must have sinned at least in some small way once, since she exhibited that she was subject to the effects of sin: death. But this view is not universal.

2nd: Purgatory. This is the easy one: THe Catholic church has defined as dogma only two aspects of purgatory:
i. Those in need of purification after death really experience it
ii. Prayer for these souls helps them become purified quicker.

The rest is theological speculation. So purgatory need not be a place, it may only be a transitional state, and who knows how time works there. The arguments as to whether the souls are punished by material fire which purifies, or spiritual fire that purifies, or whether punishment and innocence go hand in hand at all are also speculation on both parties ends. I will venture a simple synthesis however:
Those who die in God’s friendship, but are still not complete in their theosis (sanctification) undergo punishment whether harsh or light depending on the degree of sin in their life. The punishment in itself is not purifying, but repays the justice to God who declares “You will not get out until you have PAID the last penny.” But because God’s just is PERFECT, it enables his mercy, who knows all the details and culpabilities, and extenuations, etc. and so he allows the prayers we offer on earth to be of benefit to the soul of the departed person. Mark of Ephesus asked the poignant question: “What has punishment to do with innocence?” If God forgives you and declares you innocent, then why do you need to fill a debt?

This can get very nuanced, but the Orthodox view death as a continuation of the process of sanctification begun on earth. Basically, it starts on earth, is completed after death, and when you have been freed of sin, you enter into the presence of God in a limited way, and you CONTINUE to grow in holiness! See, you don’t just reach a “good enough” point and stop in God’s presence, you are constantly growing and deppening IN HIS PRESENCE. The scripture testifies that we are being transformed from glory to glory, we are eternally entering depper into the mystery of God. BUt to go DEEPER and be transformed means to leave behind the imperfect for the more perfect. SO, even in heaven, we may be freed from our sin, but not our weakness! Like the limited ability of the human mind to even begin to try and comprehend its creator! And so we are being eternally strengthened and made fast in the presence of God.

So, you see, this whole eternal process of growth, it is no wonder the Orthodox ask: “Why in the world are you Latins focusing so myopically on one point in time after death?! Namely the period immediately after death and before admission to paradise when all of eternity of becoming God(like) lies before you!”

See how it’s easy to kinda be trivial on some of these questions?

3rd Papal infallibility: I already said That. The POpes infallibility is not personal, it is official, connected to his office, he is not more than a Bishop, he simply a Bishop in a priviledged position, and His infallibility is merely an extension of the church’s infallibility and flows from it, because he is seen as the spokesman of the whole church and accepted as such. Therefore the Holy spirit CANNOT let him err, or the entire Church would defect from the faith.

Excellently stated. Nothing more can be added. The Catholic Church DEFINES Teachings to clarify and to cast away doubt and confusion. That is the purpose of these Dogmatic statements. Not to reinvent the wheel. Just to cast a light over it…