T
TP2
Guest
Are you sure ??
Eastern Orthodoxy and Purgatory, Immaculate Conception and Infallibility
- Status
T
TP2
Guest
Who ruled The Orthodox Churches during the 2nd millenia? The Pope is The Successor of St. Peter. St. John Chrysostom even says over and over … “St Peter…he that alone carrieth the keys of the Kingdom…” The Pope is The Voice of The Church. Whether he be Judas, Peter, Philip, Thomas or any other personality representing the original 12 Apostles in their strenghts and weaknesses… He is only the Messenger… I never said a perfect one. I said “a messenger” God chose to set apart ALONE. Why did God do it that way?
I don’t know. But if you know of a better way to keep the Church together, let me know because up to now, God has kept his Word and “Hell has not prevailed against It…” So until you know of a better way to do it, I’d let God.
T
TP2
Guest
Why are you praying to her? How do you know she is in heaven? You can’t answer that. You don’t want to face the reality of my thesis. The bishop makes it happen. You don’t. I know. I go to these events. The Bishop calls on the name of the canonized and proclaims to the local Church (Diocese) that this person IS a saint. How does he know this? You keep saying that the people pray and the cult is great but that doesn’t prove anything. If I tell you that The Immaculate Conception is True on the basis that The Mother of God told this to a young girl named bernadettte and throngs of people witnessed events of the apparition, will you believe it on those merits alone?
I doubt it very much.
D
DavidKays
Guest
Excuse me are you a priest? Alot of people call you father. If you are then you have a great knowledge of us Father. I am Greek Orthodox and reading your post I will like to make some comments. The problems within East and West are very simple. You guys in the West like to dogmatized everything ,well we in the East don’t. Our dogmas are not so much as if you have to believe in them, no, our greatest dogmas are this. Fall in love with God and His Holy Mother. Have a relationship with them. That to us is a better dogma. No dogma however explained or defined can give that to us. We the Orthodox prefer to experience God’s Love and to grow into a relationship with His Mother. We are not concerned so much about dogmas as you are. The best dogma in the world for us is to have a relationship with Her Son and with Her. This is what the Eastern Church or the Orthodox want from her children. Dogmas are useless unless you have a relationship with God and His Mother. That is why we do not dogmatized Her like you do in the West. So She is Immaculated Conceived! So what! What will that do with a 5 year old girl! Tell her that Mary is Immaculated Conceived. That is not going to change anything. But teach her about Mary to fall in love with Her to have a relationship with Her. I think that is more important. You Catholics got it backwards! The Dogmas become more important than the relationships! We the Orthodox say your priorities are wrong. Dogmas are great but not as important as your relationships with them. Do you know why we do not need a teaching called Purgatory? Because we put our Faith into practice. We do not need to Dogmatised everything! Man you guys in the West just love to do that. We don’t need this teaching because we put in practice what you guys dogmatized. We pray for the departed more than those in the West. So God needs us to have a better dogmatized teaching. Come on! It is you Guys in the West particularly the Catholic Church that needs to be reminded. Not so the East. We always have a need to pray and remember the departed not because we need this teaching of Purgatory but because we do it out of love for our departed brethren because out of love we have for our Lord. Yes Purgatory is true. I for one believe in Purgatory and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I am Orthodox and believe in these teachings. But they are un-necessary when I pray for the departed when I have a relationship with the Holy Mother. Teachings or Dogmas are useless if you don’t have a relationship with our Lord or with His Mother. And don’t say one leads to the other because we are doing well without them. I believe you Catholics got it backwards. Listen to the East who believes that relationships are more important. Dogmas are good but not more important then putting your Faith into practice. God Bless!
S
Shiranui117
Guest
All due respect, Father, you seem to be totally forgetting that the bishop doesn’t make anyone a saint, and you seem to be totally ignoring what everyone else is saying. If the Bishops were saying the sky was blue, would that be considered an infallible act? No. It’s the same thing with formally recognizing someone as a Saint. The bishop just acknowledges what everyone else is saying. He isn’t making any infallible statement, he’s saying the sky is blue and that so-and-so is a Saint, because it’s apparent to the Bishop and to anything else. There is nothing ambiguous, no dogmatic thing happening. It’s just a formal recognition. People praying to the person and the fact that that person has a cult devoted to them and icons made in their honor are things only given to Saints. What’s so hard to understand?Why are you praying to her? How do you know she is in heaven? You can’t answer that. You don’t want to face the reality of my thesis. The bishop makes it happen. You don’t. I know. I go to these events. The Bishop calls on the name of the canonized and proclaims to the local Church (Diocese) that this person IS a saint. How does he know this? You keep saying that the people pray and the cult is great but that doesn’t prove anything.
I doubt it very much.
I would respectfully advise you to keep an open mind, Father.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
I think for some reason the Catholic Church likes to have things ordered in very logical, rationally defined ways and wrapped up in easy to understand little packages. If A and B occurred then we can infallibly define that a person is a saint or that this sacrament is “valid.” The Holy Spirit blows where He will and doesn’t always fit into our mental constructs. The way the Holy Spirit acts in the life of the Church is often a mystery, and not a mystery in the sense of a puzzle needing to be solved (like A + B=C or transubstantiation), it’s a mystery in that we will never understand it, we can only enter into it.All due respect, Father, you seem to be totally forgetting that the bishop doesn’t make anyone a saint, and you seem to be totally ignoring what everyone else is saying. If the Bishops were saying the sky was blue, would that be considered an infallible act? No. It’s the same thing with formally recognizing someone as a Saint. The bishop just acknowledges what everyone else is saying. He isn’t making any infallible statement, he’s saying the sky is blue and that so-and-so is a Saint, because it’s apparent to the Bishop and to anything else. There is nothing ambiguous, no dogmatic thing happening. It’s just a formal recognition. People praying to the person and the fact that that person has a cult devoted to them and icons made in their honor are things only given to Saints. What’s so hard to understand?
There is no formula for sainthood. The Holy Spirit simply reveals it to the Church and we recognize that revelation. That is all.
Yours in Christ
Joe
B
Bluegoat
Guest
You are focusing on statements which are by nature unclear, and not beliefs. How the Churches treat the consequences of their understanding of Original Sin make it clear that there is a difference. Their treatment of baptism and its purpose is the best example.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Although there can be a tendency among SOME Roman Catholics to have that attitude towards theology, it’s not the typical Roman Catholic way. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the works of John Paul II, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Jean Danielou, or Hans Urs von Balthasar; or, alternatively, take a look at the writings of John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, Bonaventure, or (dare I say) Thomas Aquinas. None of these great theologians and mystics were attempting to “dogmatize” anything. Instead what they were trying to do was set up a theological paradigm wherein we could more deeply contemplate the infinite mystery of God, or better still, contemplate that mystery in different ways. Some, such as John of the Cross, and even Bonaventure and Aquinas, could at times be very apophatic.
Sadly, much of the Orthodox misconception of Roman Catholic theology comes from over familiarity with Thomists and neo-Thomists who attempt to “dogmatize” nearly every word that came from Aquinas’ lips. What nearly everyone fails to recognize, however, is Thomas’ own words when he ceased writing his great Summa Theologica, “All I have written is so much straw.” At least he recognized, in both intellect and action, that when faced with the infinite mystery of God, the most adequate response is love-filled and awe-inspired silence.
That being said, there is also some truth to the Orthodox conception of Roman Catholic theology. Many theologians and Catholics do give the impression that the only reason the Church exists is to define dogma, and that the sole purpose of theology is to demonstrate how the defined dogmas are logical. This is not theology proper, but philosophy of religion.
I’m not saying that I’m totally on board with Roman theology; the more I contemplate, the more I’m drawn deeper into the beauty of Byzantine Christianity. I’m only acknowledging that I’ve spent enough of my life immersed in Roman Catholicism at both the level of the head and of the heart that I can affirm that Roman theology isn’t as black and white or dogmatic as many Orthodox and Catholics would have one think. It’s good to recognize the great theological and mystical works of the West as well as of the East/Orient.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Father, bless!Why are you praying to her? How do you know she is in heaven? You can’t answer that. You don’t want to face the reality of my thesis. The bishop makes it happen. You don’t. I know. I go to these events. The Bishop calls on the name of the canonized and proclaims to the local Church (Diocese) that this person IS a saint. How does he know this? You keep saying that the people pray and the cult is great but that doesn’t prove anything. If I tell you that The Immaculate Conception is True on the basis that The Mother of God told this to a young girl named bernadettte and throngs of people witnessed events of the apparition, will you believe it on those merits alone?
I doubt it very much.
The canonization process of Orthodoxy was once also the canonization process of Roman Catholicism. It traditionally moved from the level of popular acclaim, to recognition by the local hierarchs, and finally to universal recognition. Simply do a little research into the canonization of St. Francis of Assisi or St. Anthony of Padua. St. Francis was canonized only a year or two after his death because there was such a widespread popular acclaim of the holiness of his life. He wasn’t canonized because the Pope liked him. The pope simply recognized Francis’ saintliness; a recognition that was already going on at the popular level.
J
jam070406
Guest
This is a very serious judgement against the intentions of those Popes.
Pope Pius V pray for us!
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Rest assured, Divine Justice at your personal judgment requires an account of everyones words so I wouldn’t be so concerned with him, but rather yourself (not that I am specifically pointing out anything you’ve said jam ). But I agree with you, sweeping judgment is a failure of the virtue of prudence, especially against a large number of St. Peter’s successors!
S
sidbrown
Guest
It makes no sense to accuse Orthodox of splitting hairs when Catholics do the same thing in many areas, such as for example, marriage annulments. Everyone else calls it a divorce, but Catholics insist on splitting hairs and calling it an annulment,.No. Because The Catholic Church isn’t challenging someone else’s beliefs through the belief of “Nullity” of Marriage.
V
Vico
Guest
You believe that is is not right? You know that a marriage is a covenant between God and each Spouse and the Spouses, approved by the Church, but is is not approved by the Church unless there are no impediments, and the Church can only do it’s best to verify that the the covenant is true. There is never a 100% certain way to know that the marriage is valid, but there are ways to know it was not. So, suppose a couple married with Church approval but there was something undetected making it invalid or illicit, or the marriage was entered without Church approval, then it might be uncovered later. The anullment is a declaration of this invalidity. Or for an attempted marriage of a Church faithful without Church approval it is sinful and is not a Church marriage, and can be documented as non-existent after a civil divorce.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
A covenant is only between two parties: The strong party and the weak party. The couples together form the weak party, so I don’t think your statement is actually correct.
T
TP2
Guest
You still don’t get what I am saying. The Declaration of Nullity in a marriage has nothing whatsoever in Conflict with Orthodox Doctrine since they go a step further and also allow remarriage.
Remember. An Annulment is not a divorce. It is a NULLITY of The Sacramental Marriage, not the civil Marriage. The Church cannot tell the Government to accept what The Church does. So in this way, there is no conflict. This is a non-issue. I am talking in this Thread about issues Orthodoxy believes and practices yet a small group does not acknowledge that these 3 Teachings actually exist and are practiced by The Orthodox Church.
Catholic Annulments and Orthodox Divorces cause no friction because in both Churches there are remedies for a bad “SACRAMENTAL” marriage. Not Civil.
T
TP2
Guest
As did the Popes and Bishops of The Catholic Church.
F
Formosus
Guest
I wasn’t aware of any Pope(aside from the Pope of Alexandria) ruling over an Eastern Church in the first millennium.
T
TP2
Guest
Thank you.
T
TP2
Guest
Bless you too!Father, bless!
The canonization process of Orthodoxy was once also the canonization process of Roman Catholicism. It traditionally moved from the level of popular acclaim, to recognition by the local hierarchs, and finally to universal recognition. Simply do a little research into the canonization of St. Francis of Assisi or St. Anthony of Padua. St. Francis was canonized only a year or two after his death because there was such a widespread popular acclaim of the holiness of his life. He wasn’t canonized because the Pope liked him. The pope simply recognized Francis’ saintliness; a recognition that was already going on at the popular level.
You still don’t get my point. The Pope is considered as Canonizing Saints as an Infallible Teacher. Orthodox aren’t supposed to have one, remember? I don’t want to get into semantical arguments of “why” somehting is done here or there. My point is The Catholic Church canonizes Saints by The Pope whose charism is already understood to be an Infallible One by The Catholic Church so he gives what he can. The Orthodox Bishops do not claim for themselves a PERSONAL charism of Infallibilty yet they continue to do so without defining what they are doing when they categorically Pronounce a person as being in Heaven. I am not arguing the point of what the Catholic or Orthodox Processes are or the intentions of them. I am saying simply that EO’y prounounces persons as Saints in Heaven. I call that Infallibilty. What do you call it?
You still can’t answer my direct question but choose to dance around it. I am simply asking a question. How does the EO Bishop know a person is in Heaven if they do not accept Infallibility as a Charism for The Bishop of Rome, yet practice it themselves.
- Status