Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

[Vico]

…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. …

The Brown Scapular has always been associated with remaining chaste, prayer and or fasting.

The Church approves of pious practices, and that the faithful can believe in personal revelations, without the Church certifying that they are true or not. The official teaching of the Catholic Church is that scapulars are signs only, just like a cross or crucifix (called sacramentals). The Mysteries mediate saving grace to the faithful not sacramentals.

In 1613 the Holy See determined that the decree establishing the “Sabbatine Privilege” was unfounded and the Church admonished the Carmelite Order not to preach this doctrine.

carmelitanacollection.com/catechesis.php

 

[trophybearer]

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

You just don’t get it. You don’t want an explaination and you will accept none. You just like being provocative and reassuring yourself. If you ask a question and can’t accept the answer don’t bother asking! You’re just wasting your time and everyone else’s.

 

[Nine_Two]

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

Within the Orthodox world “Theologean” is a title set aside for very few, while he may have dealt with theology, he was not a Theologean.

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.

It seems the problem you’re having here is that you believe we must be as driven as the Roman Church to define everything. We aren’t. We hold no doctrine regarding what happens immediatly after death.

Bottomline, are toll houses true or false teaching?

It is heterodox opinion, neither confirmed nor condemned.

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.

The Ecumenical Councils of the Church are the only authority we hold infallible on this earth. Anything they did not deal with IS opinion. The Orthodox Church has very little in the way of doctrine, compared to you Romans.

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

Many of the articles on “Jesusissavior.com” have “Catholic” in their address lines. So?

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

I can find you an article writen by a Latin on the internet that says Eastern Catholics are heretics. Wanna see? Of course the difference between my source (Catholic Encyclopedia) and yours (orthodoxinfo) is that the one I’m referencing carries a certain air of authority to it among Catholics, while orthodoxinfo is generally considered a joke among Orthodox, with some good information couched in limitless polemics.

 

[steve_b]

You just don’t get it. You don’t want an explaination and you will accept none. You just like being provocative and reassuring yourself. If you ask a question and can’t accept the answer don’t bother asking! You’re just wasting your time and everyone else’s.

If someone ask me about a Catholic belief, I have a ton of resources to back up an answer. I don’t expect ANYONE to take my personal opinion. And I take no offense if someone asks me for sources. I give them readily.

I’m finding that’s not the way it is with EO.

 

[trophybearer]

If someone ask me about a Catholic belief, I have a ton of resources to back up an answer. I don’t expect ANYONE to take my personal opinion. And I take no offense if someone asks me for sources. I give them readily.

I’m finding that’s not the way it is with EO.

What you’re finding is that people get tired of you and don’t care to argue with you any further. You don’t listen and you’ve made up your mind. You find yourself not victorious, but simply written off.

 

[steve_b]

Within the Orthodox world “Theologean” is a title set aside for very few, while he may have dealt with theology, he was not a Theologean.

Actually his former church calls him a theologian.

serfes.org/lives/stjohn.htm
NT:

It seems the problem you’re having here is that you believe we must be as driven as the Roman Church to define everything. We aren’t. We hold no doctrine regarding what happens immediatly after death.

So you don’t teach anything regarding what happens after death?
NT:

It is heterodox opinion, neither confirmed nor condemned.

then how is something heterodox?
NT:

Many of the articles on “Jesusissavior.com” have “Catholic” in their address lines. So?

Those guys are anti Catholic. I didn’t post from an anti Orthodox site nor would I knowingly do that.
NT:

I can find you an article writen by a Latin on the internet that says Eastern Catholics are heretics. Wanna see?

What’s that got to do with prayers for the dead and toll booths?
NT:

Of course the difference between my source (Catholic Encyclopedia) and yours (orthodoxinfo) is that the one I’m referencing carries a certain air of authority to it among Catholics, while orthodoxinfo is generally considered a joke among Orthodox, with some good information couched in limitless polemics.

I’m not defending the OIC by anymeans. They say some pretty dumb stuff on their information page. If you say they are a joke, you must have your reasons. But I’m curious, what EO church do you suppose they belong to and what earns them their reputation from YOUR perspective??

 

[Aramis]

Heterodox is anything not orthodox.

It includes that which is anathema, and that which is merely “not approved”…

 

[gmcbroom]

Ladies / Gentlemen,
I realize my opinion was not solicited here. However, as we are all christians I feel it maybe wise to say something. There is a passage in the bible that speaks of faith saving someone; its one of my favorites, actually. The passage about the Roman centurian and his servant and how Jesus healed his servant through the Centurian’s faith alone. Why do I say this? Why is it so important? Simple. The Roman centurian clearly on the outside was not a Christian, wearing as he did the trappings of Rome and its authority. It was his faith though not exactly jewish, or christian that saved his servant. His faith in Jesus.

 So the fact that it wasn't exactly taught to him in RCIA, catholic or orthodox class didn't matter.  Faith here is the key.  In short whether its toll houses or scapulas is irrelevent, faith in God is what matters.
 
 Now for those that must absolutely, have the faith a certain way, remember that Jesus also spoke about those who didn't exactly worship like his disciples.  He said to leave them be.  

 He also spoke on how either the sadducesses or pharasees who worshipped to the letter of the law themselves were not saved.  Because they didn't have faith in anything beyond it.  So we should all be aware that humility and faith may have more weight than following the law so strictly you don't see anything else.  Let us not become arrogant with the knowledge we possess that we fail to see God through humble faith.

What ultimately am I saying? Simple, our Orthodox brother was kind enough to discuss Toll houses here. An interesting subject actually, a personal revelation from one Orthodox priest. It does seem to share characteristics with purgatory. Is it the priests view of purgatory? Possibly. Let us not place our selves as judges over this belief which we don’t fully understand, and as its outside of our patrimony we shouldn’t anyway.

Lastly, never forget that this is the Eastern Catholic Forum the views shared here will predominantly be Eastern Catholic and yes even Orthodox. Does that make them wrong? No. Just not Roman.

Yours in humble faith,
gmcbroom

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually his former church calls him a theologian.

serfes.org/lives/stjohn.htm

Theologian in the more modern sense of the word, Theologian is not, as you notice, part of his saintly title.

So you don’t teach anything regarding what happens after death?

The Church has no teachings on the process which happens after death, we most certainly have teachings about things which happen after death, such as the resurrection. I feel this was an attempt to twist my words though.

then how is something heterodox?

That is the definition of heterodox - anything the Church has no stance on which one believes is a heterodox belief.

Those guys are anti Catholic. I didn’t post from an anti Orthodox site nor would I knowingly do that.

Yes, and having a word in the URL is meaningless on the content.

What’s that got to do with prayers for the dead and toll booths?

Nothing, but that’s not your argument, your argument is site x says something, and site x claims to be this, therefore those people site x says it represents must hold this to be true.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says Eastern Catholics are heretics, the Catholic Encyclopedia claims to be Catholic, therefore the Catholic Encyclopedia represents Catholics, and therefore Catholics believe that Eastern Catholics are heretics.

I have used the same logic as you, and based it on the same axiom as your own argument, therefore you must either accept what I have said to be fact, or admit that your own argument is built on a flawed premise. Choosing any other option indicates you are simply trying to score point, dishonestly if you must, and continued dialogue will be impossible. So, here is your dilemma, does the Catholic Church teach that Eastern Catholics are heretics, or is your idea that tollhouses are doctrine baseless?

I’m not defending the OIC by anymeans. They say some pretty dumb stuff on their information page. If you say they are a joke, you must have your reasons. But I’m curious, what EO church do you suppose they belong to and what earns them their reputation from YOUR perspective??

They represent those who are anti-ecumenists, for the most part.

 

[steve_b]

Theologian in the more modern sense of the word, Theologian is not, as you notice, part of his saintly title.

But he was a theologian…true?
NT:

The Church has no teachings on the process which happens after death, we most certainly have teachings about things which happen after death, such as the resurrection. I feel this was an attempt to twist my words though.

I think we’re using the term differently.

doctrine = teaching. by definition…agreed?

Therefore, when you said you have no doctrine regarding what happens after one dies, I understood you to mean you have no teaching (by definition) of what happens after death.

See how I came to that conclusion?
NT:

That is the definition of heterodox - anything the Church has no stance on which one believes is a heterodox belief.

definitionally, isn’t heterodox something that goes against or is contrary to a defined teaching? Therefore, If something isn’t defined, or against / contrary to, a defined teaching, then why is it necessarily heterodox? Why not just in the range of acceptable?
NT:

Yes, and having a word in the URL is meaningless on the content.

The context was a site that claims to be fully Orthodox. You claim to be fully Orthodox also. You disagree with each other. Therefore, between you, who do I believe? I googled the authors of the articles I posted. There’s dogmatic theologians and saints in the group. Can you give me reasons why this site is NOT representing Orthodoxy? That should be an easy task if they are unorthodox…true?.
NT:

Nothing, but that’s not your argument, your argument is site x says something, and site x claims to be this, therefore those people site x says it represents must hold this to be true.

NT,

Here’s your oportunity to quote authoritative sources that support your views.
NT:

The Catholic Encyclopedia says Eastern Catholics are heretics, the Catholic Encyclopedia claims to be Catholic, therefore the Catholic Encyclopedia represents Catholics, and therefore Catholics believe that Eastern Catholics are heretics.

Here’s the Catholic encyclopedia.

Can you show me?
newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm
NT:

I have used the same logic as you, and based it on the same axiom as your own argument, therefore you must either accept what I have said to be fact, or admit that your own argument is built on a flawed premise. Choosing any other option indicates you are simply trying to score point, dishonestly if you must, and continued dialogue will be impossible. So, here is your dilemma, ***does the Catholic Church teach that Eastern Catholics are heretics, ***

No.

And by now I’m sure you’ve looked over the Catholic encyclopedia and found you are wrong on your statement
NT:

or is your idea that tollhouses are doctrine baseless?

I’m still waiting for your sources that refute what I posted.

• I provided only Orthodox sources for that teaching, not my opinions and not anti Orthodox materials. I gave the links to make it easy for you to see where I’m quoting from. I didn’t mistate, misinterpret, misrepresent, or force a position that is not stated in the sources I quoted.
• Conversley, Where are your sources?

NT:

They represent those who are anti-ecumenists, for the most part.

Agreed.

 

[Nine_Two]

But he was a theologian…true?

In the same way as you or I.

I think we’re using the term differently.

doctrine = teaching. by definition…agreed?

Doctrine being those teachings which must be believed.

Therefore, when you said you have no doctrine regarding what happens after one dies, I understood you to mean you have no teaching (by definition) of what happens after death.

Apply doctrine above.

See how I came to that conclusion?

Yes, by applying a Latin worldview to the East.

definitionally, isn’t heterodox something that goes against or is contrary to a defined teaching? Therefore, If something isn’t defined, or against / contrary to, a defined teaching, then why is it necessarily heterodox? Why not just in the range of acceptable?

No, that’s heretical.

The context was a site that claims to be fully Orthodox. You claim to be fully Orthodox also. You disagree with each other. Therefore, between you, who do I believe? I googled the authors of the articles I posted. There’s dogmatic theologians and saints in the group. Can you give me reasons why this site is NOT representing Orthodoxy? That should be an easy task if they are unorthodox…true?.

Because it doesn’t have the backing of any Orthodox body should be your first clue that it doesn’t represent all of Orthodoxy. It certainly represents a small section of Orthodoxy, but I’ve not denied that.

NT,

Here’s your oportunity to quote authoritative sources that support your views.

Here’s the Catholic encyclopedia.

Can you show me?
newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

Type in “Filioque”, now find that it calls Constantinople heretical for refusing to use it, just like most Eastern Catholics today! By an interesting coincidence it also teaches duel-procession, something which we Orthodox, and I’m constantly told Catholics, believe is heretical. Oops.

No.

And by now I’m sure you’ve looked over the Catholic encyclopedia and found you are wrong on your statement

Or not. The problem with making statements like this after asking for proof but before allowing it to be delivered, is you have to backpedal. Since the link has been provided, I’ll give you another chance to pick your way out of this dilemma.

I’m still waiting for your sources that refute what I posted.

Yes, the nature of a forum would dictate this.

• I provided only Orthodox sources for that teaching, not my opinions and not anti Orthodox materials. I gave the links to make it easy for you to see where I’m quoting from. I didn’t mistate, misinterpret, misrepresent, or force a position that is not stated in the sources I quoted.
• Conversley, Where are your sources?

Nope, you just used a questionable source.
new-ostrog.org/tollhouseletter.html has a counter argument to the toll-house ideas.

Agreed.

Then knowing they represent such a faction, why bother using them as representative of all Orthodoxy?

 

[steve_b]

In the same way as you or I.

I studied theology but I don’t claim to be a theologian by a long shot.
jd:

Doctrine being those teachings which must be believed.

I would think that regarding theology and liturgy, If something is not to be believed, such as toll houses for example, they would disappear from the teaching and the liturature…true?
jd:

No, that’s heretical.

heterodox = contrary to or different from an acknowledged standard, a traditional form,

heresy = obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed
jd:

Because it doesn’t have the backing of any Orthodox body should be your first clue that it doesn’t represent all of Orthodoxy. It certainly represents a small section of Orthodoxy, but I’ve not denied that.

The articles I quoted had Orthodox bodies behind them.
jd:

Type in “Filioque”, now find that it calls Constantinople heretical for refusing to use it, just like most Eastern Catholics today! By an interesting coincidence it also teaches duel-procession, something which we Orthodox, and I’m constantly told Catholics, believe is heretical. Oops.

:coffeeread: ah the tempest in a teapot.

first of all, to answer your accusation, if E Catholics were called heretics or were deemed heretics by the Church, I doubt they would remain in union with the pope.

There’s a bazillion threads on the filioque. If you’re interested you’ve got lots of threads to pick from.
jd:

Nope, you just used a questionable source.
new-ostrog.org/tollhouseletter.html has a counter argument to the toll-house ideas.

Whose opinion is correct, since no ONE speaks for EO?
jd:

Then knowing they represent such a faction, why bother using them as representative of all Orthodoxy?

If you used pro ecumenism as your litmus for EO, list those churches who desire it

 

[Aramis]

Actually, doctrine is not “which must be believed”; that would be dogma.

Teachings is anything formally part of the expression of the faith.
Doctrine is that which must be taught.
Dogma is that which must be believed.

To many, a legalististic distinction… but important.

Limbo was a teaching.
Purgatory is a Roman Doctrine, and a subset of Purgatory (that compatible with Byzantine Theosis) is dogma.
The Real Presence is Dogma.

 

[dvdjs]

Type in “Filioque”, now find that it calls Constantinople heretical for refusing to use it, just like most Eastern Catholics today! By an interesting coincidence it also teaches duel-procession, something which we Orthodox, and I’m constantly told Catholics, believe is heretical. Oops.

I followed your directions, but did not find where it calls Constantiople heretical for refusing to use the filioque. It does call them heretical for refusing the authority of Rome.

Dual-procession heretical? You have not been constantly told this by Catholics. The idea of a dual source would be heretical. But dual-procession does not mean dual-source even though if is all too frequently confused as such in debates.

 

[JohnVIII]

I’m not all that clear what the reason is to bring Toll-Houses into this thread, but I for one believe in the Toll-Houses. I accepted the teaching when I was Orthodox and I see no reason to stop believing in this teaching now that I am Catholic. Is anyone implying that upon Reconciliation with Rome that the Orthodox would have to stop believing in Toll-Houses? I know that all Orthodox do not believe in them, but among us who do it is understood that it really doesn’t matter whether or not anyone believes in them, it won’t change the fact that we will all have to pass through them after we die.

Prior to the death of Christ the Devil had power to lock up in prison the souls of all who died. After Christ died He went and preached to the spirits in prison and those who were held there were set free. Now, since the time that Christ set them free, anyone who dies will not go to prison but will be accused by evil spirits of sins as they pass by them at the Arial Toll-Houses on their way toward Heaven. If he has partaken of Holy Communion the same day that he died he will pass by all the Toll-Houses unhindered. Otherwise, each of 20 Toll-Houses are for different types of sins and if an accuser has a valid claim that the man sinned without repenting then he may only pass that Toll-Houses if his Guardian Angle, who is beside him at the Toll-House, has money (representing the good deeds the man has done) to pay the claim for that Toll-House. If the mans Guardian Angle doesn’t have enough to pay then the evil spirit has a valid claim and may then take the man from his Guardian Angel down to the place of torment.

There is no mention about any such place as purgatory, but if purgatory is also true I would presume that the place of torment that the evil spirit takes the man to upon a valid claim of unrepented sin would be purgatory, unless of course the sins are moral sins. Prayer for the dead is helpful not only in purgatory as the Latin Church teaches but it is also helpful when passing through the Arial Toll-Houses and can even increase the amount of money the man’s Guardian Angel has to pay at the Toll-Houses.

I just speculated above on how both teachings (Toll-Houses & purgatory) might be true. Usually the two teachings are presented in contrast to each other because both sides (East & West) wish to prove themselves right and the other side wrong. We can both be right and something like this should by no means hinder reunion. Orthodox do not teach that the Toll-Houses must be believed. The teaching is just informative for those who wish to know what to expect upon death.

 

[steve_b]

I followed your directions, but did not find where it calls Constantiople heretical for refusing to use the filioque. It does call them heretical for refusing the authority of Rome.

Dual-procession heretical? You have not been constantly told this by Catholics. The idea of a dual source would be heretical. But dual-procession does not mean dual-source even though if is all too frequently confused as such in debates.

Nicely said.

dual procession **≠ **dual source

This is why the less polemical EO think this entire issue is a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Kokomoka]

Ladies / Gentlemen,
I realize my opinion was not solicited here. However, as we are all christians I feel it maybe wise to say something. There is a passage in the bible that speaks of faith saving someone; its one of my favorites, actually. The passage about the Roman centurian and his servant and how Jesus healed his servant through the Centurian’s faith alone. Why do I say this? Why is it so important? Simple. The Roman centurian clearly on the outside was not a Christian, wearing as he did the trappings of Rome and its authority. It was his faith though not exactly jewish, or christian that saved his servant. His faith in Jesus.

 So the fact that it wasn't exactly taught to him in RCIA, catholic or orthodox class didn't matter.  Faith here is the key.  In short whether its toll houses or scapulas is irrelevent, faith in God is what matters.
 
 Now for those that must absolutely, have the faith a certain way, remember that Jesus also spoke about those who didn't exactly worship like his disciples.  He said to leave them be.  

 He also spoke on how either the sadducesses or pharasees who worshipped to the letter of the law themselves were not saved.  Because they didn't have faith in anything beyond it.  So we should all be aware that humility and faith may have more weight than following the law so strictly you don't see anything else.  Let us not become arrogant with the knowledge we possess that we fail to see God through humble faith.

What ultimately am I saying? Simple, our Orthodox brother was kind enough to discuss Toll houses here. An interesting subject actually, a personal revelation from one Orthodox priest. It does seem to share characteristics with purgatory. Is it the priests view of purgatory? Possibly. Let us not place our selves as judges over this belief which we don’t fully understand, and as its outside of our patrimony we shouldn’t anyway.

Lastly, never forget that this is the Eastern Catholic Forum the views shared here will predominantly be Eastern Catholic and yes even Orthodox. Does that make them wrong? No. Just not Roman.

Yours in humble faith,
gmcbroom

I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Peace,
Kokomoka

 

[Hesychios]

Heterodox is anything not orthodox.

It includes that which is anathema, and that which is merely “not approved”…

That’s fair. I think I could subscribe to that.

It means ‘another opinion’ and is not necessarily wrong, but some of these could be very wrong, which is pretty much why they should not be taught as if the authority of the church is behind them. In other words, we tend to be strict constructionists, and interpret narrowly or not at all.

 

[Nine_Two]

There’s a bazillion threads on the filioque. If you’re interested you’ve got lots of threads to pick from.

I cannot help but think your obstenence is forced. I am not arguing about the filioque, I am arguing that a Catholic page says those who do not recite it (Eastern Catholics) are heretics.

Since a Catholic page says it, it must be true, following your logic.

Since you wish to wallow in misunderstanding, however, I shall not be one to disturb your fun. This conversation is quite over, I think.

dvdjs:

I followed your directions, but did not find where it calls Constantiople heretical for refusing to use the filioque. It does call them heretical for refusing the authority of Rome.

Dual-procession heretical? You have not been constantly told this by Catholics. The idea of a dual source would be heretical. But dual-procession does not mean dual-source even though if is all too frequently confused as such in debates.

You apparently didn’t read far enough.

The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church

Note that it says the rejection of the filioque is a principle error of the “Greek church”, while it says the denial of Romes supremacy is also an error, both are described as distinct errors.

Those who do not say the filioque are heretics, according to that page, and according to Steve, one page is all that is necessary to condemn an entire religion.

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually, doctrine is not “which must be believed”; that would be dogma.

Teachings is anything formally part of the expression of the faith.
Doctrine is that which must be taught.
Dogma is that which must be believed.

I think you are right, they were getting used interchangably, although the difference isn’t very much.