Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

[John_oxios]

See: “Death of girl at Baptism ruled homicide”
“Sade Victoria Omotola died September 20 while on life support at Children’s Hospital, where had been since blood began streaming from her nose and her face turned blue during her baptism at Imani Temple, a parish church that had broken away from the Catholic Church. Father August Griffin had immersed the baby’s head three times into a baptismal font.”

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=2346

hi Sid,
It is a terrible accident, but,
READ AGAIN! Your anti Roman Catholic Bias is glaring!
You are a gossip monger.

 Ever hear of a Roman Catholic Church called '**Imani Temple**?'

It’s a a breakaway Church of a Breakaway Church of the RCC.

From their web site:

In May of 1990 Archbishop Stallings was consecrated as a bishop of his church by Richard Bridges, an archbishop of another breakaway denomination, the independent Old Catholic Church.
The next year, he was elevated to the rank of archbishop. Archbishop Stallings has established six additional Imani temples, five in cities throughout the United States–Baltimore, Richmond, New Orleans, Philadelphia, South Carolina – and in Lagos, Nigeria
"a parish church that had broken away from the Catholic Church. Father August Griffin had immersed the baby’s head three times into a baptismal font.

It still doesn’t state which Catholic Church Roman, Eastern, and there are probably fifty protestant church’s which use the name Catholic, to claim universality.

However,

The Imani Temple in Washington was founded by schismatic priest George Stallings in 1989. The following year he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church. A few months later, he was ordained bishop by several Old Catholic bishops. The DC** Imani Temple**, together with at least three other parishes he established, now form the self-proclaimed “African American Catholic Congregation.”

Although they by and large hew to traditional Catholic teaching, they have also played a bit fast and loose with some traditional rules - they have ordained female clergy, the now Archbishop of the Americas Stallings in 2001 married a Japanese wife in a mass-wedding ceremony blessed by Unification Church Rev Sun-Myung Moon, and they discourage infant baptism.

But you probably know this already! Because its right here on CAF,

Does the Imani Temple have valid sacraments?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=101567

You want to blame the whole RCC, for something they aren’t even guilty of.
What is your problem with the RCC? You seem more like a protestant with your anti catholic bias? What type of Catholic are you really?

Roman Catholic Priests are not perfect, but they will be judged more harshly,By God; and there are plenty of Good decent RC Priest/Clergy,

We pray for our priests.

 God bless, 
            John

 

[John_oxios]

I hear they have a super computer in the Vatican that has every Orthodox believer’s personal information on record.

Do not believe something simply because you hear it!

 

[sidbrown]

hi Sid,
It is a terrible accident, but,
READ AGAIN! Your anti Roman Catholic Bias is glaring!
You are a gossip monger.

 Ever hear of a Roman Catholic Church called '**Imani Temple**?'

It’s a a breakaway Church of a Breakaway Church of the RCC.

From their web site:

In May of 1990 Archbishop Stallings was consecrated as a bishop of his church by Richard Bridges, an archbishop of another breakaway denomination, the independent Old Catholic Church.
The next year, he was elevated to the rank of archbishop. Archbishop Stallings has established six additional Imani temples, five in cities throughout the United States–Baltimore, Richmond, New Orleans, Philadelphia, South Carolina – and in Lagos, Nigeria
"a parish church that had broken away from the Catholic Church. Father August Griffin had immersed the baby’s head three times into a baptismal font.

It still doesn’t state which Catholic Church Roman, Eastern, and there are probably fifty protestant church’s which use the name Catholic, to claim universality.

However,

The Imani Temple in Washington was founded by schismatic priest George Stallings in 1989. The following year he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church. A few months later, he was ordained bishop by several Old Catholic bishops. The DC** Imani Temple**, together with at least three other parishes he established, now form the self-proclaimed “African American Catholic Congregation.”

Although they by and large hew to traditional Catholic teaching, they have also played a bit fast and loose with some traditional rules - they have ordained female clergy, the now Archbishop of the Americas Stallings in 2001 married a Japanese wife in a mass-wedding ceremony blessed by Unification Church Rev Sun-Myung Moon, and they discourage infant baptism.

But you probably know this already! Because its right here on CAF,

Does the Imani Temple have valid sacraments?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=101567

You want to blame the whole RCC, for something they aren’t even guilty of.
What is your problem with the RCC? You seem more like a protestant with your anti catholic bias? What type of Catholic are you really?

Roman Catholic Priests are not perfect, but they will be judged more harshly,By God; and there are plenty of Good decent RC Priest/Clergy,

We pray for our priests.

 God bless, 
            John

Yes, this example was a breakaway Church.
But I thought that I did read a while back about something similar having occurred in an RC Church. The example simply shows that there can be a danger in triple immersion over pouring and that the priest has to be trained correctly in the procedure.

 

[John_oxios]

Yes, this example was a breakaway Church.
But I thought that I did read a while back about something similar having occurred in an RC Church. The example simply shows that there can be a danger in triple immersion over pouring and that the priest has to be trained correctly in the procedure.

SOMETHING SIMIlar?? In The many Baptisms I’ve attended, I have twenty first cousins with several children each, and four of my own, I’ve never seen A child triple immersed, I’ve sen them have Baptismal water pouredd over their head thrice, blessed thrice and have the sign of the Cross made over them thrice, But not immersed in water.

       So now show me the reference for the Mishap RCC Baptism that you HEARD  something similar.  Did you think I wouldn't look up your reference? Or read it through? 

DON"T BELIEVE SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HEARD IT!   ESPECIALLY IN REPEATING IT. That's what they call gossip.

You’re listed as Catholic, what Catholic faith do you belong too?

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

See: “Death of girl at Baptism ruled homicide”
"Sade Victoria Omotola died September 20
catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=2346

Hi Sid,
This is more responsible reply:

It seems the real skinny is the Mother INSISTED on the full immersion, she was on life support from Sept 8 -20, she was also born three months premature which may have been a contributing factor… If she had just simply had the Baptismal water poured over her head, she may still be alive today. Viva La difference!!

Houston Chronicle, Sunday, Sept. 15, 1996

WASHINGTON - A 4-month-old girl was in critical condition Saturday night after nearly drowning during a baptism at a Northeast Washington church last weekend, officials said.

The girl, identified by church officials as Sade Victoria Momatola of Landover, Md., suffered brain damage after being dunked three times into a baptismal tub last Sunday morning at the Imani Temple, said police and church leaders.

Archbishop George Agustus Stallings Jr., founder of the Imani Temple on Capital Hill, said Friday that the baptism occurred against the recommendations of the church, which requested that the baby, born three months prematurely, be sprinkled with water instead/COLOR].

“The mother insisted that her daughter be fully baptized by immersion,” Stallings said during a news conference at National Airport, where he was returning from a revival service in Detroit.

Police and church officials said the baptism occurred during Sunday’s 11 am Mass at the church, which is in the 600 block of Maryland Avenue NE.

After Associate Pastor August Griffin preformed the ceremony, the mother, identified as Juanita Momatola, noticed blood streaming from her daughter’s nose and said she feared that the baby was going into cardiac arrest, church officials said.

The baby has remained at Children’s Hospital in critical condition since Sunday, a hospital spokeswoman said.

Griffin and Juanita Momatola could not be reached for comment. Church officials said Griffin has been suspended from preforming baptisms while they investigate.

Stallings said that Sade was born three months prematurely at Children’s Hospital and that** she had suffered complications from the birth. **He said the infant remained hospitalized three months after her birth and was, in effect, “a 1-month old girl” when she was baptized.

“We were unaware of Sade Victoria’s medical problems associated with her premature birth,” Stallings said. Officials with Children’s Hospital would not release details of the child’s medical history.

Church officials said they will immerse infants but recommended against it.** “I’ve never seen a child that young and that tiny get baptized,” said an official **with the Imani Temple. “The feeling of the church is that children should not be baptized until they are old enough to make that decision for themselves.”

My suggestion is at least try to get the whole truth before you find yourself repeating the lie.
Maybe its time to put away the prejudices of your childhood, time to distinguish the true from the false.
God Bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

No what I am is suggesting is this: Once that proper explination of a belief is given, the other side should not continue to insist that the contrary is what is believed.

The Catholic Church does not believe that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the strict sense, but rather that the Spirt Proceeds from the Father and the Son in the manner already explained–THROUGH. Yet, it is still contended by many Orthodox that the Former and not the Latter is the case.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM
this is a reference to the teaching on the Filioque.

Hey A-poet,

               Thanks for the url reference above.
 From what I remember, in the Church History, the first centuries of the Church the question was like a daily discussion over breakfast, at shops, on the lips wherever  people gathered,   "The Spirit proceeds from the Father,"   or the The Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son."

The question was causing dissension and splitting the Church, Arianism was also a problem, Constantine asked for the Council to form to put “an end” to the matter. From which we get the Nicaean Creed

"

The Council of Nicaea was to produce a document which was to become a basic doctrine of Christendom. It was called the Nicaean Creed and it spelled out the relationship of God to Christ as decided upon at that Council. A comment with regard to it in the fourth Century ‘History of the Greek Nation’ gives an interesting perspective on the value of the Nicaean Creed. It states, “ It ( the Nicaean Creed) shows Constantine’s indifference to doctrinal matters . . . his stubborn insistence in trying to restore unity within the church at any cost, and finally his conviction that as bishop of those outside the church he had the final say about any religious matter.’’

From:   [essortment.com/all/constantine_rbsr.htm](http://www.essortment.com/all/constantine_rbsr.htm)

After, the debates/ question never really stopped due to the Eastern/Western Church’s exception to the theological question of 'Whom or how the Spirit proceeds, however the East and the West were still in communion till 1054… We still live with the very same difference, just separately. Does that make us totally different?
I guess this express’s it best:

What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8,16), the Son is “the Son that he loves” (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God’s love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his “beloved Son” (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6).11

God is One in Nature, Three persons, this is a mystery? Isn’t it odd that the Eastern Church which is against philosophical definition of the mysteries of God,
fights tooth and nail over this theological mystery?

The Nicaean Creed came about to preserve the apostolic teaching that Jesus is God incarnate, which Arianism was threatening to reduce Jesus to a regular joe?
Arianism was a threat to split the Church, seems we’ve forgotten about that, and allowed it too anyway.
God bless,
John

 

[Annie39]

Hey A-poet,

               Thanks for the url reference above.
 From what I remember, in the Church History, the first centuries of the Church the question was like a daily discussion over breakfast, at shops, on the lips wherever  people gathered,   "The Spirit proceeds from the Father,"   or the The Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son."

The question was causing dissension and splitting the Church, Arianism was also a problem, Constantine asked for the Council to form to put “an end” to the matter. From which we get the Nicaean Creed

" From: essortment.com/all/constantine_rbsr.htm

After, the debates/ question never really stopped due to the Eastern/Western Church’s exception to the theological question of 'Whom or how the Spirit proceeds, however the East and the West were still in communion till 1054… We still live with the very same difference, just separately. Does that make us totally different?

God bless,
John

John is correct and I believe that I said the same thing a few days ago. The Eastern Rilte of the Church do not use the filioque but believe as we do. Sigh

 

[steve_b]

gmcbroom,

I think you are absolutely correct in that there are two different philosophies at work governing the differing developments of the Orthodox east and (Latin) Catholic church in the west.

Take (for example) the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos and the concept of purgatory – both are Latin Catholic dogmas, but interestingly much of their support comes originally from Orthodox (Eastern) theology. The Orthodox just never felt a need to go a step further to codify such teachings. I’ve heard that the teaching of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos uses largely Orthodox/Eastern patristic fathers for its support, just those same church fathers never felt the need to take it a step further and put forth the Immaculate Conception. We Orthodox also have some theology similar to purgatory, though we certainly don’t call it that. (Anyone interested, just read some Orthodox teaching on the "toll houses" and the disagreement even among Orthodox on that subject. At an Orthodox funeral, just have a listen to the prayers said by the grave, and you’ll hear a lot of what sounds like purgatory of the Latin catholics.)

are toll houses taught primarily by Russians (18 references in following link)? What other EO teach toll houses?
orthodox.net/articles/life-after-death-john-maximovitch.html

 

[Nine_Two]

are toll houses taught primarily by Russians (18 references in following link)? What other EO teach toll houses?
orthodox.net/articles/life-after-death-john-maximovitch.html

Primarily Russian, although you might find assorted groups in other churches who believe it.

 

[steve_b]

Primarily Russian, although you might find assorted groups in other churches who believe it.

And the RO comprise the majority of EO?

 

[trophybearer]

And the RO comprise the majority of EO?

It does, but nobody could say how many Russian Orthodox accept this belief. The Russian Church has gone on record saying that it it has pleased the Lord to reveal little to us about what happens to the soul after death, and therefore things like this are by no means dogmatic. Fr Seraphim Rose apparently did much to popularize this idea in recent times with some of his writings. I don’t believe in “toll houses”, and I can’t reconcile it to Orthodox belief unless used completely metaphorically, and even then I have no use for it.

 

[Aramis]

And the RO comprise the majority of EO?

In raw numbers, yes.

 

[Nine_Two]

And the RO comprise the majority of EO?

As Trophybear said, that is irrelevant to the teaching. The teaching is found primarily among the Russian Churches, it is not necessarily accepted among most of the membership of those churches. No one teaches it as dogma.

 

[steve_b]

As Trophybear said, that is irrelevant to the teaching. The teaching is found primarily among the Russian Churches, it is not necessarily accepted among most of the membership of those churches. No one teaches it as dogma.

Here’s the problem. How do you answer the following?

From this link

1. toll houses are mentioned 18 times.
2. 8 times toll houses are mentioned in broader context with the liturgy.
3. then there is this quote. “There is absolutely no doubt that the teaching of the toll-houses is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. We find this teaching in Holy Scripture (cf. Eph 6:12), the writings of all the Church Fathers (both ancient and modern) and throughout the prayers of the Church.”

orthodox.net/articles/life-after-death-john-maximovitch.html

Does this sound like irrelevant teaching? Based on that quote, sounds like doctrine to me. Notice when they say there’s no doubt it’s a teaching of the Orthodox Church, they’re not specifying Russian only but the “Orthodox Church” i.e. I suppose all the EO churches.

Who is correct on this? I gather you’re not RO.

• How can you be sure few RO accept this teaching?
• do you know what other EO churches accept toll houses?

 

[Nine_Two]

Here’s the problem. How do you answer the following?

From this link

1. toll houses are mentioned 18 times.
2. 8 times toll houses are mentioned in broader context with the liturgy.
3. then there is this quote. “There is absolutely no doubt that the teaching of the toll-houses is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. We find this teaching in Holy Scripture (cf. Eph 6:12), the writings of all the Church Fathers (both ancient and modern) and throughout the prayers of the Church.”

orthodox.net/articles/life-after-death-john-maximovitch.html

Does this sound like irrelevant teaching? Based on that quote, sounds like doctrine to me. Notice when they say there’s no doubt it’s a teaching of the Orthodox Church, they’re not specifying Russian only but the “Orthodox Church” i.e. I suppose all the EO churches.

Who is correct on this? I gather you’re not RO.

• How can you be sure few RO accept this teaching?
• do you know what other EO churches accept toll houses?

St. John Maximovich is neither considered infallible, nor a theologian and his word is not law.

Also I said numbers were irrelevant to the teaching, not that the teaching was irrelevant.

Finally, I am OCA, which is one of the Churches commonly called “Russian Orthodox”.

 

[trophybearer]

St. John Maximovich is neither considered infallible, nor a theologian and his word is not law.

Also I said numbers were irrelevant to the teaching, not that the teaching was irrelevant.

Finally, I am OCA, which is one of the Churches commonly called “Russian Orthodox”.

Here’s the problem. How do you answer the following?

From this link

1. toll houses are mentioned 18 times.
2. 8 times toll houses are mentioned in broader context with the liturgy.
3. then there is this quote. “There is absolutely no doubt that the teaching of the toll-houses is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. We find this teaching in Holy Scripture (cf. Eph 6:12), the writings of all the Church Fathers (both ancient and modern) and throughout the prayers of the Church.”

orthodox.net/articles/life-after-death-john-maximovitch.html

Does this sound like irrelevant teaching? Based on that quote, sounds like doctrine to me. Notice when they say there’s no doubt it’s a teaching of the Orthodox Church, they’re not specifying Russian only but the “Orthodox Church” i.e. I suppose all the EO churches.

Who is correct on this? I gather you’re not RO.

• How can you be sure few RO accept this teaching?
• do you know what other EO churches accept toll houses?

No Church “teaches” the belief in toll houses. Some individual Orthodox Christians may believe in them. How many Catholics believe that wearing a Brown Scapular will save them from hell? Your Chrurch approves of “promises” attatched to the wearing of it. One of those promises is the promise that the wearer will not suffer eternal hellfire with no other qualifications. Do you believe that? Can you say how many Catholics do? How many Catholics believe that in a contest between pears and apples, apples are obviously the superior fruit? How many Catholics wait at least a half hour to go in the pool after eating? Quit being mischievous!

 

[steve_b]

St. John Maximovich is neither considered infallible, nor a theologian and his word is not law.

Also I said numbers were irrelevant to the teaching, not that the teaching was irrelevant.

is this the same St John Maximovich in this article? If so, he was a bishop & theologian.
orthodoxinfo.com/death/preface_soul.aspx

It seems the problem we’re having here is, no ONE speaks for EO. You dismiss alot of source material awefully easily. You can’t speak authoritatively for EO, saints can’t, nor bishops, nor RO who apparantly make up the majority of EO. Maybe someone chooses to believe that one of these sources can speak for EO. But that’s a spurious way to prove something is true or false.

Bottomline, are toll houses true or false teaching?

And who are you going to point to, for an infallible answer? IOW, how are you going to avoid someone saying back to you, oh that’s just HIS opinion. Or that’s just THEIR opinion, and neither of them is infallible.
NT:

Finally, I am OCA, which is one of the Churches commonly called “Russian Orthodox”.

Many of the articles on this site have “OCA” in the address line.

here’s an article on

“The Church’s prayers for the dead”. Toll booths are mentioned 7 times here.

orthodoxinfo.com/death/prayer_dead.aspx

 

[steve_b]

No Church “teaches” the belief in toll houses. Some individual Orthodox Christians may believe in them.

Go back and read the links I provided. One of the links was

“St Nicholas ROC” Dallas Tx
orthodox.net/articles/life-after-death-john-maximovitch.html

Read this link.
tb:

How many Catholics believe that wearing a Brown Scapular will save them from hell? Your Chrurch approves of “promises” attatched to the wearing of it. One of those promises is the promise that the wearer will not suffer eternal hellfire with no other qualifications. Do you believe that? Can you say how many Catholics do? How many Catholics believe that in a contest between pears and apples, apples are obviously the superior fruit? How many Catholics wait at least a half hour to go in the pool after eating? Quit being mischievous!

I at least back up with links from EO sites, evidence for what I have been asking, and saying. I haven’t misquoted anyone, nor embellished what someone has said, nor mistated or misdirected anyone’s statements or intent, nor been mischievious.

 

[Hesychios]

Bottomline, are toll houses true or false teaching?

Neither. It is not a formal teaching at all.

This is analogous to a Roman rite Catholic believing in the Fatima apparitions, or even Limbus Infantum.

The concept is a speculation, and individuals may have an opinion, that does not automatically make the thing a doctrine. I suppose it has value as a teaching tool, but we have to regard it as a pious fiction.

BTW, individual bishops, or even synods, may decide that they do not want their clergy preaching on the subject due to the possibility that it is not true at all or that it may provoke confusion. But that doesn’t mean any or all bishops or synods will take that approach, it is a basically harmless speculation (which is what purgatory would also be if it were not a mandated belief).

The fact that the Toll Houses are believed by some folks in a specific region (namely Russian, in this case) but not in other areas (many with a much longer history of being Christian) should be a big clue, it does not satisfy the Vincentian canon and the church is not going to enroll it as a dogmatic teaching.

 

[steve_b]

Neither. It is not a formal teaching at all.

I gave link after link showing detailed (formal if you will) teaching on toll houses. NOWHERE in those links did it say toll houses is a speculation or speculative belief / teaching. NOWHERE in those links I gave were toll houses deemed optional belief.

Please quote for me a source that is authoritative for ALL EO churches ergo accepted by all, that puts this issue to rest.

This is analogous to a Roman rite Catholic believing in the Fatima apparitions, or even Limbus Infantum.

I’m giving you the search engine to the Catechism below.

Apparitions (private revelations) aren’t required belief. The Church says that officially. There is no mistake on that. From the CCC [emphasis mine]

**67 **Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states what is to be believed worldwide. Here is the search engine for the Catechism. Do a search on Limbo
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Please quote an official EO source that itentifies what all the EO churches worldwide are to believe?
h:

The concept is a speculation, and individuals may have an opinion, that does not automatically make the thing a doctrine. I suppose it has value as a teaching tool, but we have to regard it as a pious fiction.

Again, please quote an EO source recognized by all EO, to be the official position of EO, that says toll houses are a pious fiction or something to that fact.
h:

BTW, individual bishops, or even synods, may decide that they do not want their clergy preaching on the subject due to the possibility that it is not true at all or that it may provoke confusion.

What do you say to the bishops who DO teach it?
h:

But that doesn’t mean any or all bishops or synods will take that approach, it is a basically harmless speculation (which is what purgatory would also be if it were not a mandated belief).

So you’re also denying that the EO have any formal belief in a soul’s purification after death of the body but before a soul goes to heaven?
h:

The fact that the Toll Houses are believed by some folks in a specific region (namely Russian, in this case) but not in other areas (many with a much longer history of being Christian) should be a big clue, it does not satisfy the Vincentian canon and the church is not going to enroll it as a dogmatic teaching.

I see some problems here with your answer.

• Russians make up the majority by number of EO. (I only say that because I asked and it was confirmed by other EO) And it’s clear they teach toll houses
• I’m sensing you’re saying RO because they came late to the party, aren’t really Orthodox or maybe not Christian? I’m not sure what you’re saying there.
• I’m not taking sides here, but EO outside Russia, in general, for most of its existance, was under Moslem rule. The Russians who came to Christianity ~980, were not under Moslem rule as were the other EO churches. For over 500 years for example, the patriarch of Constantinople/Istanbul, served at the pleasure of the Sultan. So given that, who has bragging rights over who is or isn’t authentically EO?
• Finally, please show how the EO in general follow the Vincentian model.