The "Orthodox Crisis"

[steve_b]

discovering the teaching about toll houses, when much had been made to me that Orthodoxy doesn’t go with any concept of purgatory. But my Orthodox friends had assured me it wasn’t necessary.

If it was me, here’s what I would have asked them

• can you quote the authority for your assurance of that?
• what about Praying for the dead? That is part of the faith of Orthodoxy, AND it’s part of the liturgy as well.

So based on that, I woud ask them

• Why does Orthodoxy pray for their dead? If a person is in heaven they need no prayers. If one is in hell they can’t benefit from prayer. So why do the Orthodox pray for their dead?
• Where and what state are those souls in, in the afterlife, where they can benefit from prayer?

When I quoted from Met Kallistos Ware, he’s a well respected prelate, professor, author, in Orthodoxy. He contradicts your friends opinion that in Orthodoxy there is no concept of purgatory.

That being said, it needs to also be said, in Orthodoxy, no ONE can speak for, nor does speak for all of Orthodoxy. That goes for your friends, that goes for Met Kallistos Ware.

Hence the crisis in Orthodoxy… Authority… where is it?
E:

Initially, I had accepted the idea of purgatory while looking at Catholicism. It makes sense.

And the concept of purgatory can be shown in scripture 1 Corinthians 3:13-15
Death has happened. Judgement has taken place. A soul is saved, however before entrance into heaven, purification happens FIRST since nothing unclean enters it. Revelation 21:27 .

Paul describes a process that is NOT heaven YET. But after this purification, the soul enters heaven.
E:

Now I’m wondering about the immaculate conception and related doctrines. I feel somewhat misled.

As a suggestion,

If an answer doesn’t sound right to you, always ask for proof. And make sure the proof given is from a verifiable accurate and credible source that has authority behind it. Otherwise a person can be misled

 

[Eruvande]

Thank you. Helpful information and chastening wisdom. I think it’s probably time I took things a bit more seriously in terms of investigation - it’s very easy to get pulled from pillar to post in enthusiasm.

 

[thistle]

Backstory: The Orthodox Church is seeing astounding numbers of new converts in recent decades. The OCA claims that around half of their members are converts, and the rates among clergy are even higher: The Antiochian Diocese of America claims a clergy convert rate of 75%. It’s true that the number of converts to Catholicism has been growing in recent years, and we there’s quite a number of prominent Catholic converts, but at nowhere near the same rates as the Orthodox have been seeing. While the majority are converts are from Protestantism, there’s quite a significant number of ex-RC’s in there as well.

My question is: Why? And why isn’t Catholicism getting a share of the converts as well? I’ve never really seen a Catholic explanation for the phenomenon, and the majority of Catholics that I’ve asked like to simply pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. The Orthodox, for their part, explain the Protestant phenomenon as one that’s a direct result of the information age, the rise of Protestant movements seeking to return to the ways of the “early Church”, and a general identity crisis arising in Protestantism as part of trend of Protestants seeking to return to their roots. But the roots of Protestantism are in the Western Church, not the Eastern Church. So what gives?

As for the Catholic phenomenon, they explain it as a direct result of Vatican II, and the post-VII identity crisis that we saw arise in many Western Catholics. But I’ve never heard a Catholic reasoning for it. So what exactly would that be?

The Orthodox ARE Catholics but schismatic ones.

 

[steve_b]

The Orthodox ARE Catholics but schismatic ones.

That’s NOT correct.

Example

Historically, the Melkites were Catholic, then became Orthodox, then back to Catholic

The following is from Bishop John a Melkite Catholic Bishop answering that question

Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”

[snip]

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.

from the following link

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

 

[thistle]

That’s NOT correct.

Example

Historically, the Melkites were Catholic, then became Orthodox, then back to Catholic

The following is from Bishop John a Melkite Catholic Bishop answering that question

from the following link

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

The Orthodox split in the Great Schism. They are still Catholic.

 

[steve_b]

The Orthodox split in the Great Schism. They are still Catholic.

I showed you evidence where they aren’t. So show me evidence that contradicts the evidence I presented.

 

[steve_b]

Thank you. Helpful information and chastening wisdom. I think it’s probably time I took things a bit more seriously in terms of investigation - it’s very easy to get pulled from pillar to post in enthusiasm.

And we know emotions can be misleading. Decisions ought to be made on evidence, and I also know from experience, that’s often times easier said than done.

 

[Casilda]

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God… and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[eamonnroma]

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Catechism of the Catholic Church

I have discovered that many Orthodox churches consider to roman church to be apostate, in that the RC church was the one to break away from the catholic apostolic church. That is why they will not permit us to receive communion at their altars. Of course we allow the Orthodox to receive at our altars.

There was also doubt as to the validity of our Mass for many centuries as there was no obvious epiclesis in the Tridentine rite, something that was rectified in the new Eucharistic prayers. The invocation of the Holy Spirit is essential in Orthodox theology.

Timothy Ware once wrote that the Orthodox see (Roman) Catholics and Protestants as two sides of the same coin.

 

[steve_b]

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God… and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Catechism of the Catholic Church

IOW not being

• fully incorporated into the Cartholic Church,
• in her entire organization
• professing the same faith
• being under the same ecclesiastical government
• being in communion with those who are Catholic

Then they aren’t Catholic… YET

 

[Augustine]

Timothy Ware once wrote that the Orthodox see (Roman) Catholics and Protestants as two sides of the same coin.

Indeed, the Orthodox like to say that Catholics add to the Faith and Protestants subtract from it, while they merely keep it.

While I think that they are right about Protestants, I also think that they are wrong about Catholics and themselves.

They confuse development of doctrine to be additions to the Faith. I suspect that this stems from the Filioque controversy, which they regard as a heresy. However, this assessment came centuries after the Filioque had been added to the Creed in the 5th century and I think as an effect of the Great Schism.

On the other hand, the Church never condoned artificial birth control, but this is a staple practice in Orthodox circles. So the claim that they keep the Faith intact, without adding to or subtracting from the Faith is untrue.

However, such distortions in Orthodoxy are not dogmatic. I was told by a Catholic priest who’s rather knowledgeable about Orthodoxy that this happens at local levels. According to him, no Orthodox patriarch affirmed such deviations from orthodox (pun intended) Christianity often found in Orthodox circles.

Having said this, I yearn for the day when the Great Schism is no more. I hope that I can witness its end in my lifetime.

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

Now I’m wondering about the immaculate conception and related doctrines. I feel somewhat misled.

You will not find the dogma of the Immaculate Conception explicitly affirmed by the Orthodox. Like Catholics before it was declared a dogma, the Orthodox agree that the Mother of God was free from sin from birth, but are uncertain about the moment in which it happened. But they are in good company, for St. Thomas Aquinas speculated that it had happened after conception but before birth, IIRC.

Perhaps you could check out an Eastern Catholic Church. I am partial to the Maronite Church, which was never separated from Rome, and whose liturgy of St. James is the oldest in use.

Pax Christi

 

[eamonnroma]

You will not find the dogma of the Immaculate Conception explicitly affirmed by the Orthodox. Like Catholics before it was declared a dogma, the Orthodox agree that the Mother of God was free from sin from birth, but are uncertain about the moment in which it happened. But they are in good company, for St. Thomas Aquinas speculated that it had happened after conception but before birth, IIRC.

Pax Christi

In fact the Orthodox do not consider ‘original’ sin as do catholics. St Augustine is not very well known to them. The Orthodox do not accept the Immaculate Conception.

Here is an artice which attempts to explain the Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin rather than original sin.

oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin

 

[Errham]

You will not find the dogma of the Immaculate Conception explicitly affirmed by the Orthodox. Like Catholics before it was declared a dogma, the Orthodox agree that the Mother of God was free from sin from birth, but are uncertain about the moment in which it happened. But they are in good company, for St. Thomas Aquinas speculated that it had happened after conception but before birth, IIRC.

Perhaps you could check out an Eastern Catholic Church. I am partial to the Maronite Church, which was never separated from Rome, and whose liturgy of St. James is the oldest in use.

Pax Christi

That’s not quite true. The Orthodox do not believe that original sin is hereditary. They believe tha, while humans inherit the traits of original sin, they are not guilty of the sin simply by being born human. Therefore, Mary could have lived a sinless life regardless of an immaculate conception.

Now, where the Catholic position stands on the notion of hereditary original sin, is a whole different story that I don’t quite know enough to get into. But that’s the gist of it.

 

[steve_b]

That’s not quite true. The Orthodox do not believe that original sin is hereditary. They believe that, while humans inherit the traits of original sin, they are not guilty of the sin simply by being born human. Therefore, Mary could have lived a sinless life regardless of an immaculate conception.

as I understand it, they believe she could live a sinless life on her own effort without grace coming first or some form of that explanation.
oca.org/questions/saints/sinlessness-of-mary

Technically what’s described there is a form of pelagianism
E:

Now, where the Catholic position stands on the notion of hereditary original sin, is a whole different story that I don’t quite know enough to get into. But that’s the gist of it.

in a nutshell the Catholic position is 404 , 405 , 406

Fuller explanation of Original sin
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=original+sin&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

The E Orthodox charge that the Catholic Church teaches that we are guilty of the sin of A & E.

The Church doesn’t use the word guilty. The Church teaches we ARE implicated, like we are implicated as follows 402 , 404 . Being made a sinner by implication is different than being guilty of actually commiting a sin

 

[Augustine]

Here is an artice which attempts to explain the Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin rather than original sin.

From what @SteveB said below, it seems, to a layman like me, to be a distinction without a difference…

Pax Christi

 

[Errham]

From what @SteveB said below, it seems, to a layman like me, to be a distinction without a difference…

Pax Christi

Well, from what I understand, the big issue is Mary living a life without concupiscence, which according to them negates the whole purpose of the immaculate conception in the first place.

 

[Eruvande]

But surely the reason she lived a life without concupiscence is because she as immaculately conceived? Oh this is so confusing…

 

[Errham]

But surely the reason she lived a life without concupiscence is because she as immaculately conceived? Oh this is so confusing…

Well, that’s sort of the point. The Orthodox don’t believe that Mary was free from the temptation of sin. They believe that she lived a sinless life, but did so despite the temptation to sin, not because of the lack of it.

 

[Eruvande]

Well, that’s sort of the point. The Orthodox don’t believe that Mary was free from the temptation of sin. They believe that she lived a sinless life, but did so despite the temptation to sin, not because of the lack of it.

No one has ever been free from the temptation to sin, as I understand it. Not even Jesus.