I can’t remember exactly, but there is something I read a few months back. But it was never applied to one specific bishop or one specific see, several bishops were referred to as vicars. But again it never carried a meaning in the same way Rome uses it today, those bishops weren’t infallible or supreme over other Church.
The particular judgment damns those who die outside of a state of grace, and that damnation is eternal. It is impossible for the prayers of the living to save a person who has died and been sentenced to Hell.
What I explained is the Orthodox understanding, what you replied back is the Catholic understanding. You must understand there is a difference. From a Catholic perspective you are correct, from an Orthodox perspective you are wrong. We do not believe in such a thing as “state of grace”.
Regardless of the semantics, the true faith must hold that a soul’s eternal destination is determined immediately after death. The most you can say is that you still consider the matter unresolved (although Rome has resolved it); the Church never formally taught that the destiny of a soul can be changed after death until the Last Judgment.
Why are you insisting that we accept the Catholic position? The schism isn’t merely about the Filioque or Papal Supremacy. I’m sorry, but we cannot accept this decision. The fact is, the Fathers never taught conclusively what the afterlife will be like. If Rome has resolved it, that is for Rome, not for us. We see things differently based on Patristic texts and teachings that has been passed down to us from the beginning of the Church.
Of course, all these issues do come down to papal supremacy. But the most the Orthodox can say is “I don’t know” on this issue, yet you presented as truth something that has not been defined as such by the Orthodox and certainly was never taught by the undivided Church (which are the same Patristic texts and teachings that have been passed down to us as well, on the basis of which this issue was resolved).
I don’t take the word of an individual Orthodox as the teaching of the Orthodox Church any more than you should take the word of an individual Catholic as the teaching of the Catholic Church. In this case, the doctrine of the particular judgment pre-dates the schism even though it was not formally defined until after. I am not aware of the undivided Church ever teaching anything remotely resembling what you are saying is the true Orthodox position. If I am incorrect, please point me to the Synod or Council that taught this; otherwise, I have to assume that you are claiming as doctrine what is only theological speculation, which does not help the cause of true dialogue.
We are pretty much in agreement in this case
Then why even have a discussion here?
Your assumption is incorrect. There are many things pre-schism that we do not agree on. That is the thing I was talking about, even though we seemingly talk about the same thing, our understanding of it is fundamentally different even before the schism. When was the schism anyway? East and West has had a building animosity since the Council of Nicaea, and there was intercommunion up until the Fall of Constantinople.
You’ll find many of the differences we have are semantic. And while it is all well and good to brush something off as just “semantics”, they are quite important. Changing the definition of a word changes a lot.
It’s just semantics of “semantics”I’ve never understood what that objection is supposed to mean. Semantics is the study of meaning, and meaning is important, so…“it’s just semantics” doesn’t really mean what people think it does.
We pray for the dead so that they can be released from purgatory.
Toll Houses is a theological opinion that to this day is very controversial. It is not doctrine or dogma, there are notable theologians who subscribe to it and there are others who reject it. That is the thing, know nothing about the exact mechanisms of after life. The one I described, at least by my reading and study, is the common accepted belief. Anything beyond that is speculation or opinion, and yes there are plenty of those. Like, how exactly does prayers for the dead work? We don’t know, but we know that they do work. We do know that the final state is not final until we are resurrected, because that is in Scripture. Can it still be changed, can it be altered? How exactly we do not know. Purgatory does not make sense in our theology, also Beatific Vision. We subscribe to Theosis, which is not the same as Beatific Vision.
We know this and we agree this is the Catholic teaching. But it is not the Orthodox teaching. I know that what the Oriental Orthodox believe on this matter is not that far, if not completely the same, from what the Eastern Orthodox do.
What I mean is that, regardless of quibbling over whether the Orthodox like the “Western formulation” of a concept, the reality behind the words can be understood by both sides.I’ve never understood what that objection is supposed to mean. Semantics is the study of meaning, and meaning is important, so…“it’s just semantics” doesn’t really mean what people think it does.