The Petrine views

[frjohnmorris]

… but in the end I just do not see it that way and I rather doubt that those who or have authority in such matters if they really want reunion will go the way you think it needs to go.

I am going to give you an honest answer. I do not want to offend you or any other reader of this site, but I will give an honest answer, because you should at least try to understand my point of view as an Orthodox Christian. Remember, Rome recognizes the full validity of the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church and considers me a real Priest ordained by a Bishop in full Apostolic Succession. You understand that I can only speak for myself, I cannot speak for the Eastern Orthodox Church, but I cannot accept the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council. Even if I accepted the full Roman Catholic interpretation of St. Matthew 17-18, and St. John 21:15-19, I do not believe that one can build a whole doctrine of Church polity on two relatively short sections of the Gospels. At the very most these texts tell us that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. Something which we Orthodox acknowledge. Just because the Bishop of Rome has a legitimate claim to be the head Bishop or leader of the Church, that does not mean that they have absolute supremacy over the entire Church, universal jurisdiction or infallibility. I am historian with a Ph.D in history and taught history on the college level. It was my study of history that led me to Orthodoxy. I was raised a Methodist, but as a teenager felt a need to seek affiliation with the ancient historic Church. I became an Episcopalian believing that they had Apostolic Succession and were truly Catholic. I learned much to my distress that my Priest, a sincere and good but misled man, taught me his idea of Anglicanism. Unfortunately his idea of Anglicanism had little resemblance to the real Anglican Church, which despite a few Catholic trappings is not only completely Protestant, but liberal Protestant. My disillusion finally led me to Eastern Orthodoxy because my studies of church history convinced me that the Eastern Orthodox Church has kept the beliefs and practices of the ancient Church better than any other group of Christians.
I cannot find in the consensus of the Holy Fathers, or the proceedings of the 7 Ecumenical Councils anything that can be reconciled with the modern Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. The Popes had a primacy of honor as senior Bishop, could receive appeals but had to submit the case to a council of Bishops, and could not render the decision himself. As the head of the Church in the capital of the Empire, the Pope had great influence, but did not have universal jurisdiction, authority over an Ecumenical Council or the authority to unilaterally issue binding declarations on the doctrine of the Church. Thus I believe that the Pope had a primacy of honor as “first among equals.”
The closest that a Pope came to speaking “ex cathedra” during the first 1,000 years of church history was Pope St. Leo I the Great’s Tome on the issue of Monophysitism. However, even St. Leo had to turn to an Ecumenical Council to have the decisions of the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449 revoked and his Tome accepted as the official doctrine of the Church. The Council of Chalcedon did not approve the Tome of Leo just because it came from Rome, but appointed a committee that studied it for 5 days to determine whether or not it was orthodox. Only after the committee determined that the Tome was orthodox was it approved by the council. That incident alone disproves the claim that the ancient Church recognized papal infallibility. Canon 28 of Chalcedon clearly sates that Rome is first in rank because it is the old capital of the Empire. The canon makes no mention of the Bishop of Rome as successor to St. Peter. I know that Rome did not accept that canon, but that is irrelevant, because it shows the attitude of the Ecumenical Council towards Rome.
CONT.

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF ABOVE

Thus in my opinion, reunion between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome could only take place if the Pope gave up the claims of Vatican I and assumed a position like that held today by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The Ecumenical Patriarch is senior Bishop of the Eastern Orthodox Church, has the authority to call and preside over pan-Orthodox councils, either personally or through his representatives, and to accept appeals and appoint a council of Bishops to decide on the validity of the case. However even in his own Patriarchate, the Patriarch must abide by the decisions of the Holy Synod, a council of the leading Bishops of the Patriarchate. I sincerely believe that this model is much more faithful to the practice of the ancient Church before 1054 than the modern papacy. I do not believe that any person should be given absolute power in the Church. I believe that every Priest and Bishop including the Patriarch must be answerable to the higher power of the Holy Synod of the autocephalous Church to which he belongs and that an autocephalous Church must be answerable to the other autocephalous Churches.
There are other issues about the Catholic Church that I cannot accept, such as purgatory, the prohibition of non abortive methods of birth control, and the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. Naturally, I do not agree with the addition of the filioque clause to the Creed. I also do not agree mandatory clerical celibacy. In fact, as a married Priest, I strongly disagree with Rome on this issue. A married Priest can better relate to his people because he knows what their life is like, besides, I reject the idea that a sexually active married man is unworthy to serve the Eucharist. I do abstain the night before I serve, but both my children were born after I became a Priest. Interestingly enough when I was in seminary, almost every newly ordained deacon’s wife became pregnant within months after he was ordained. My wife was pregnant when I was ordained to the priesthood. I have tried to read Aquinas and find his theology dull and uninspiring when compared to Sts. Gregory Palamas or Symeon the New Theologian. I also am much more traditional in my liturgical tastes than modern Roman Catholic worship and prefer incense and traditional chant to the modern RC Mass. I am also worried about some of the recent statements of Pope Francis. He seems too liberal and soft on the gay issue.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father I’ve been observing this thread for some time now and with all due respect, your history is way too one sided. It biased so much that one would think the east had no part to play in the schism.

::

I have no doubt that the Greeks of Constantinople were arrogant and looked down on the Westerners as barbarians. However, despite the objections expressed to certain Western practices, especially mandatory clerical celibacy, and, of course, the filioque, the East did not break Communion with the West or try to interfere in the internal affairs of the Western Church. In your opinion, exactly how did the East contribute to the schism?

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Aramis]

Their forms of worship may be Eastern, but by their Communion with Rome their theology is not Eastern, because they accept Western doctrine. Before Vatican II even their Eastern liturgical practices were highly Westernized. One of the chief factors that continue the division between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome is the whole sordid history of the Roman missionaries who infiltrated the East in an effort to persuade people to leave the Eastern Churches and accept the papacy. Because of the explosive nature of this issue, it is best that it not be discussed with Eastern Orthodox. This conflict caused a meeting of the International Eastern Orthodox Catholic Dialogue held in Maryland a few years ago to end in great disharmony.

Fr. John W. Morris

Funny, but the majority of what our deacons use for textbooks are written by clergy of the OCA and ROCOR - only two theological elements are significantly different - the theology of Marriage, and the theology of hierarchy.

The actual dogmatic definitions are surprisingly short and non-descript - in many cases, vague. Purgatory is a place or state of posthumous purification - and the Orthodox belief that that purification is on the fringes of hell is not counter to the dogma. Theosis is possible while there - and theosis is posthumous purification.

And the Orthodox have the same sordid history of conversion by force. The Ukraine. Georgia. Ancient Armenia. It’s the sins of men. If the church had no sinners, it would be without use.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Funny, but the majority of what our deacons use for textbooks are written by clergy of the OCA and ROCOR - only two theological elements are significantly different - the theology of Marriage, and the theology of hierarchy.

The actual dogmatic definitions are surprisingly short and non-descript - in many cases, vague. Purgatory is a place or state of posthumous purification - and the Orthodox belief that that purification is on the fringes of hell is not counter to the dogma. Theosis is possible while there - and theosis is posthumous purification.

And the Orthodox have the same sordid history of conversion by force. The Ukraine. Georgia. Ancient Armenia. It’s the sins of men. If the church had no sinners, it would be without use.

I do not know what you are reading, but the Orthodox Church does not teach that the departed are purified “on the fringes of hell.” That is an example of Western influence that some Orthodox held for a time, but has since been rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church. We do believe as the Holy Fathers taught that our spiritual growth towards full theosos continues after death.
The conversion of whole nations through the conversion of their rulers was very common in ancient times. That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to Western missionaries who came to the East to convert Orthodox to Catholicism or Protestantism.
In 1895 in response to a letter from Pope Leo XIII calling upon the Orthodox to reunite with Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarchate issued a statement that contained the following. “Since, however, from a certain period the Papal Church, having abandoned the method of persuasion and discussion, began, to our general astonishment and perplexity, to lay traps for the conscience of the more simple orthodox Christians by means of deceitful workers transformed into apostles of Christ, [3] sending into the East clerics with the dress and headcovering of orthodox priests, inventing also divers and other artful means to obtain her proselytizing objects; for this reason, as in sacred duty bound, we issue this patriarchal and synodical encyclical, for a safeguard of the orthodox faith and piety, knowing 'that the observance of the true canons is a duty for every good man, and much more for those who have been thought worthy by Providence to direct the affairs of others.”

Fr. John Morris

 

[spina1953]

MY dear frjohnmorris: Thank you for your honest answer. I do try to understand your point of view and I am not offended because you do not happen to agree with me or others on this thread. I also understand you are only speaking for yourself and not the Orthodox as a whole, and that your opinions are based on your interpretations of history.

 I also understood you to be a most sincere man who seeks God in that  in seeking Him you came to the Orthodox Church in which you believe held the truth you were seeking. I also respect you being a priest as I think priests need to be respected for their calling is God's call through Christ and the Holy Spirit, for which all are not called to in that way. To be a servant of God is a high and great calling for those who are called to the priesthood.

    You may not believe this I do respect you and your dialogues  have helped me to learn much concerning the Orthodox position. While I do not always agree with all your positions, yet there are some in which I tend to agree with. 

      The East and West have both developed much differently from each other so see things in a much different light, which in my opinion is due to the circumstances of the times in question. Yet, I think that in time much of what divides us can and will be worked out. Somehow it seems to me that it can not be either one way or the other as in its either the Eastern way or the Western way but more a blending of both, so long as it does not go against that faith given to us by Christ though the Apostles.

I belong to the Disclaced Carmelite Secular order which started in the East on Mt. Carmel some 800 years ago before the Muslims drove them out and they went to the West. As an contemplative order we have much in the way of spirituality, which helps I think to try and understand not just God through Christ and the Holy Spirit but how to bring God into a troubled world in which it so desperately needs. So I am not much interested in trying to win an argument with anyone who differs from me and what I believe. I am here to learn what others think and also to share what I understand and have learned that others might gain.

Peace and God bless

 

[frjohnmorris]

MY dear frjohnmorris: Thank you for your honest answer. I do try to understand your point of view and I am not offended because you do not happen to agree with me or others on this thread. I also understand you are only speaking for yourself and not the Orthodox as a whole, and that your opinions are based on your interpretations of history.

 I also understood you to be a most sincere man who seeks God in that  in seeking Him you came to the Orthodox Church in which you believe held the truth you were seeking. I also respect you being a priest as I think priests need to be respected for their calling is God's call through Christ and the Holy Spirit, for which all are not called to in that way. To be a servant of God is a high and great calling for those who are called to the priesthood.

    You may not believe this I do respect you and your dialogues  have helped me to learn much concerning the Orthodox position. While I do not always agree with all your positions, yet there are some in which I tend to agree with. 

      The East and West have both developed much differently from each other so see things in a much different light, which in my opinion is due to the circumstances of the times in question. Yet, I think that in time much of what divides us can and will be worked out. Somehow it seems to me that it can not be either one way or the other as in its either the Eastern way or the Western way but more a blending of both, so long as it does not go against that faith given to us by Christ though the Apostles.

I belong to the Disclaced Carmelite Secular order which started in the East on Mt. Carmel some 800 years ago before the Muslims drove them out and they went to the West. As an contemplative order we have much in the way of spirituality, which helps I think to try and understand not just God through Christ and the Holy Spirit but how to bring God into a troubled world in which it so desperately needs. So I am not much interested in trying to win an argument with anyone who differs from me and what I believe. I am here to learn what others think and also to share what I understand and have learned that others might gain.

Peace and God bless

The first thing necessary to achieve real unity is honest dialogue. Like a married couple trying to get back together it is necessary to resolve the issues that divide them. We have a different understanding of primacy in the East. If we were to reunite, I do not think that the Eastern Orthodox would insist that the Western Church change its system of papal administration of its internal affairs. However, at the same time, we would not want to change our conciliar system. Internationally, the Church could be administered by a council of the Patriarchs, with the Patriarch of the West presiding, but with decisions made together through consensus.
I attended a meeting of the Pastoral Committee of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America at a Carmelite monastery retreat center near Los Angeles last year. There was such a sense of peace there. The nuns radiated inner peace. Just being around them was a spiritual experience. They are so different than most modern Catholic nuns, if you know what I mean. I once was hired by the Catholic Diocese in one of the places I was before to teach church history in their adult education program. They paired me with a radical feminist nun. She believed in woman’s ordination, inclusive language for God, and had all sorts of ideas that we would consider heretical. She dismissed the “Our Father…” as a Jewish Patriarchal Prayer. Suffice it to say we clashed. We do not have feminist nuns in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

The first thing necessary to achieve real unity is honest dialogue. Like a married couple trying to get back together it is necessary to resolve the issues that divide them. We have a different understanding of primacy in the East. If we were to reunite, I do not think that the Eastern Orthodox would insist that the Western Church change its system of papal administration of its internal affairs. However, at the same time, we would not want to change our conciliar system. Internationally, the Church could be administered by a council of the Patriarchs, with the Patriarch of the West presiding, but with decisions made together through consensus.
I attended a meeting of the Pastoral Committee of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America at a Carmelite monastery retreat center near Los Angeles last year. There was such a sense of peace there. The nuns radiated inner peace. Just being around them was a spiritual experience. They are so different than most modern Catholic nuns, if you know what I mean. I once was hired by the Catholic Diocese in one of the places I was before to teach church history in their adult education program. They paired me with a radical feminist nun. She believed in woman’s ordination, inclusive language for God, and had all sorts of ideas that we would consider heretical. She dismissed the “Our Father…” as a Jewish Patriarchal Prayer. Suffice it to say we clashed. We do not have feminist nuns in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

I quite agree with you that honest dialogue as the way to resolve issues one does not agree on. Just as you have said that married people trying to get back together have need to discuss that which drew apart in the first place. In some ways I agree with you that working together; the Patriarchs for the good of the Church is a good thing and helps to know what differences here are and ways in which they can be resolved. I think it would be a good if the East understood how the Western way of the Church is and then using that with the Eastern manor of working together by consensus, I think might be a way of uniting us, but that remains to be seen and also agreed on by the authorities within our Churches both East and West.
Yes, Carmelites are rather peaceful people for the most part, as we seek union with the Divine that is God is in our life and God is a part of our life so to speak. Waiting on the Lord in silence that he may speak to us in our hearts and our soul, is much like the Eastern spirituality of say Mt. Atmos and other places like that. I am sorry that you had a nun who was not being Christ like in her manor, but we must forgive them and pray for them that they may see the light of Christ in their heart. it is only what Jesus would ask of us. I have meditated on the Our father and I find that there is so much richness in it that I can not even begin to explain but know that it brings me personally closer to God as it has everything that we believe in. peace and God bless

 

[Aramis]

I do not know what you are reading, but the Orthodox Church does not teach that the departed are purified “on the fringes of hell.” That is an example of Western influence that some Orthodox held for a time, but has since been rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church. We do believe as the Holy Fathers taught that our spiritual growth towards full theosos continues after death. /QUOTE]

Plenty of OCA and Rusdian Orthodox still seem to hold it; Fr Schmemmann included it as one of the acceptable theologumenia, as has Bp Hilarion… So I wonder where you are getting your information, as well. You keep speaking for the Orthodox as a whole, but are unaware of what the spectrum of Orthodoxy actually includes…

And, if not, as per the troparia, on the fringes of hell, where are thise undergoing theosis between death and sufficient progress to enter heaven? Whatever it os caled, that is what catholics, especially romans, academically call “purgatory”.

 

[frjohnmorris]

frjohnmorris;11773762:

I do not know what you are reading, but the Orthodox Church does not teach that the departed are purified “on the fringes of hell.” That is an example of Western influence that some Orthodox held for a time, but has since been rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church. We do believe as the Holy Fathers taught that our spiritual growth towards full theosos continues after death. /QUOTE]

Plenty of OCA and Rusdian Orthodox still seem to hold it; Fr Schmemmann included it as one of the acceptable theologumenia, as has Bp Hilarion… So I wonder where you are getting your information, as well. You keep speaking for the Orthodox as a whole, but are unaware of what the spectrum of Orthodoxy actually includes…

And, if not, as per the troparia, on the fringes of hell, where are thise undergoing theosis between death and sufficient progress to enter heaven? Whatever it os caled, that is what catholics, especially romans, academically call “purgatory”.

By definition a theologumenia is a theological opinion that is not dogma or doctrine. The particular theologoumenia to which you refer is found in the Confession of Dosetheus, which was approved by the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem, which took place in 1672. It’s chief purpose was the condemnation of Calvinism, contained in the Catechism of Patriarch Cyril Loukaris, a Patriarch of Constantnople who fell under Calvinist influence. Every commentariy that I have read about the Confession of Dosetheus point this section out as an example of a period during which many modern Orthodox theologians call “The Western Captivity of Orthodox Theology.” This particular view is very much out of fashion among modern Orthodox theologians. Besides, the Orthodox Church does not teach the doctrine of temporal punishment which is the basis for the doctrine of purgatory. When a person confesses and receives absolution, it is the teaching of our Church that their sins are completely wiped away. The prayer of absolution pronounces forgiveness for all sins “whatsoever thou hast not succeeded in saying, either through forgetfulness or through ignorance what ever they may be…” The prayer of absolution concludes with the words, “and now having no further care for your sins depart in peace.” Penances, when they are given, are to help the person grow spiritually, not as a form of temporal punishment for sin. They are considered medicinal not punitive. Therefore there would be no need for someone who died to spend time “on the fringes of hell” to be punished for their sins, if they died repentant. In the Antiochian tradition which I follow, at the end of the funeral service, the Priest pronounces absolution over the body, in which he states that if the person died repentant that all their sins are forgiven.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[twf]

Aramis;11775670:

By definition a theologumenia is a theological opinion that is not dogma or doctrine. The particular theologoumenia to which you refer is found in the Confession of Dosetheus, which was approved by the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem, which took place in 1672. It’s chief purpose was the condemnation of Calvinism, contained in the Catechism of Patriarch Cyril Loukaris, a Patriarch of Constantnople who fell under Calvinist influence. Every commentariy that I have read about the Confession of Dosetheus point this section out as an example of a period during which many modern Orthodox theologians call “The Western Captivity of Orthodox Theology.” This particular view is very much out of fashion among modern Orthodox theologians. Besides, the Orthodox Church does not teach the doctrine of temporal punishment which is the basis for the doctrine of purgatory. When a person confesses and receives absolution, it is the teaching of our Church that their sins are completely wiped away. The prayer of absolution pronounces forgiveness for all sins “whatsoever thou hast not succeeded in saying, either through forgetfulness or through ignorance what ever they may be…” The prayer of absolution concludes with the words, “and now having no further care for your sins depart in peace.” Penances, when they are given, are to help the person grow spiritually, not as a form of temporal punishment for sin. They are considered medicinal not punitive. Therefore there would be no need for someone who died to spend time “on the fringes of hell” to be punished for their sins, if they died repentant. In the Antiochian tradition which I follow, at the end of the funeral service, the Priest pronounces absolution over the body, in which he states that if the person died repentant that all their sins are forgiven.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father,
The Latin Church certainly agrees that penance is medicinal. Yes, the temporal “punishment” aspect is part of our Tradition, but this is yet another example of a situation that is not, to the Catholic mind, “either / or”. Is the primary goal of purgatory to punish or to purify in anticipation of behold God “face to face” in heaven? Without a doubt it is the latter. Certainly, the post-Vatican II Latin Church has placed far more emphasis on confession / penance / purgatory as medicinal than punitive - this is evident to anyone who has read the teachings of Blessed John Paul, Pope Benedict, or Pope Francis. That being said, surely the East cannot completely reject the punitive approach. How else would you explain Scripture passages that clearly teach that God disciplines the faithful as a father disciplines His children? Yes, the primary goal is our purification, our deification - but Scripture and Tradition still employs the construction of “discipline” or “punishment” to explain this mystery.
Earlier you mentioned that you were unimpressed by St. Thomas Aquinas. Do you feel the same way with, say, the Carmelite Doctors, such as St. Teresa de Avila, St. John of the Cross, or St. Therese the Little Flower? Their theology is at least as mystical as Eastern theology…

 

[frjohnmorris]

frjohnmorris;11775870:

Father,
The Latin Church certainly agrees that penance is medicinal. Yes, the temporal “punishment” aspect is part of our Tradition, but this is yet another example of a situation that is not, to the Catholic mind, “either / or”. Is the primary goal of purgatory to punish or to purify in anticipation of behold God “face to face” in heaven? Without a doubt it is the latter. Certainly, the post-Vatican II Latin Church has placed far more emphasis on confession / penance / purgatory as medicinal than punitive - this is evident to anyone who has read the teachings of Blessed John Paul, Pope Benedict, or Pope Francis. That being said, surely the East cannot completely reject the punitive approach. How else would you explain Scripture passages that clearly teach that God disciplines the faithful as a father disciplines His children? Yes, the primary goal is our purification, our deification - but Scripture and Tradition still employs the construction of “discipline” or “punishment” to explain this mystery.
Earlier you mentioned that you were unimpressed by St. Thomas Aquinas. Do you feel the same way with, say, the Carmelite Doctors, such as St. Teresa de Avila, St. John of the Cross, or St. Therese the Little Flower? Their theology is at least as mystical as Eastern theology…

The Orthodox would agree that spiritual growth continues after death, but would reject any concept of temporal punishment for our sins, because we believe that Christ paid the full price for our sins on the Cross. I recognize that since Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church seems to have de-emphasized purgatory and indulgences, but both are still official Catholic doctrine.
There has been a tradition of mysticism in the West, but it has not been mainstream Catholic theology, which as been more scholastic. Even Thomas Aquinas had a mystical experience that led him to stop writing scholastic theology. The characteristic Orthodox criticism of Western theology, both Catholic and Protestant, is that it relies too much on human reason.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

H twf: I agree with your post as God does not want to condemn but to save through Christ His Son. To me purgatory is a place where one is cleansed of imperfections and sins so that one can be in union with God. I think punishment is not a good choice of word, but then again there are plenty of words we use to try and describe mystery’s that really can not be understood. It is like trying to describe God completely, and we know that it can’t be done as there are no human words that can completely describe who and what God is. So it the same with trying to describe mysteries of our religious beliefs. Try as we might, we are never going to at least in this world, be able to completely know and understand the mysteries we try to describe in trying to understand our faith and what we believe in.
As a Descalsed Carmelite Secular, we read St John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila and St. Therese of the Little Flower who are very mystical and spiritual who have shared their understanding of how one might in seeking God through Christ and the Holy Spirit come into a union with God in a mystical way. The East does not have exclusive rights to mystical experiences with the Divine, God calls whom He wills and those who hear His call listen to what he wants of us. I have not heard that our mysticism is based on human reason, but even if it was all of our teachings of Christianity is more or less based on some human reason or we would not be able to understand what it is we believe in I wonder if you might agree with that? I ask as you seem to a better understanding and have a much better way of explaining it than I do. thanks and God bless

 

[twf]

twf;11776178:

The Orthodox would agree that spiritual growth continues after death, but would reject any concept of temporal punishment for our sins, because we believe that Christ paid the full price for our sins on the Cross. I recognize that since Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church seems to have de-emphasized purgatory and indulgences, but both are still official Catholic doctrine.
There has been a tradition of mysticism in the West, but it has not been mainstream Catholic theology, which as been more scholastic. Even Thomas Aquinas had a mystical experience that led him to stop writing scholastic theology. The characteristic Orthodox criticism of Western theology, both Catholic and Protestant, is that it relies too much on human reason.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father,
You didn’t really answer my question. How does the East address those places in Scripture and in the Fathers that clearly speak of God “disciplining” or “punishing” us for our sins? We Latins agree, of course, that Christ paid the full price for our sins, but as a matter of justice there are still consequences in this life and in the next. If I break a priceless vase, the owner of the vase can forgive me - for I could never replace it - but as a matter of justice and as an act of love I must still bend down to pick up the broken pieces rather than leaving the “mess” my sin created on the floor. The primary purpose of “temporal penalties”, I think any Latin would agree, is for our own purification, our own deification, as the East believes, but Scripture and Tradition both frame this process in terms of “discipline” and “punishment”.
Archbishop Fulton Sheen explained it like this - when we sin, it is like we nail a nail into a board that is our soul, and when that sin is absolved, the nail is removed. The nail is gone - it is no more - we are no longer weighed down by it - but there is still a hole where that nail once was which penance, by the grace of God, rectifies.

The reality is there are many theologies, many unique yet complimentary traditions, within the Latin Church. The Latin Church has never been only scholastic. Thomism dominated for several centuries in the “mainstream” Latin Church because all secular priests were taught it in the seminaries…but that doesn’t mean that other schools of theology didn’t also flourish. Carmelite theology is just as valid and just as Latin - and as I said, without a doubt just as mystical as any Eastern theology. In light of Vatican II, other previously existing strains of Latin theology are once again being given the “lime light” from Rome. Of course, it is also misleading to reduce St. Thomas’ theology to pure rationalism. This of course is not true. Even if the approach is scholastic and rational, there is a strong mystical found to his theology as well. His teaching on the deification of man, in how we become like unto God by partaking of God in the Eucharist can hardly be reduced to a mere rational argument.

 

[Cavaradossi]

How does the East address those places in Scripture and in the Fathers that clearly speak of God “disciplining” or “punishing” us for our sins?

In general, the Eastern fathers teach that God’s wrath and punishment are didactic in purpose, as a dispassionate God would have no purpose in becoming wroth or for exacting punishment against His creations unless it were of benefit to them.

 

[frjohnmorris]

H twf: I agree with your post as God does not want to condemn but to save through Christ His Son. To me purgatory is a place where one is cleansed of imperfections and sins so that one can be in union with God. I think punishment is not a good choice of word, but then again there are plenty of words we use to try and describe mystery’s that really can not be understood. It is like trying to describe God completely, and we know that it can’t be done as there are no human words that can completely describe who and what God is. So it the same with trying to describe mysteries of our religious beliefs. Try as we might, we are never going to at least in this world, be able to completely know and understand the mysteries we try to describe in trying to understand our faith and what we believe in.

  As a Descalsed Carmelite Secular, we read St John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila and St. Therese of the Little Flower who are very  mystical and spiritual who have shared their understanding of how one might in seeking God through Christ and the Holy Spirit come into a union with God in a mystical way. The East does not have exclusive rights to mystical experiences with the Divine,  God calls whom He wills and those who hear His call listen to what he wants of us. I have not heard that our mysticism is based on human reason, but even if it was all of our teachings of Christianity is more or less based on some human reason or we would not be able to understand what it is we believe in I wonder if you might agree with that? I ask as you seem to a better understanding and have a much better way of explaining it than I do. thanks and God bless

The Holy Fathers tell us that we continue our spiritual growth after death. However, unlike traditional Roman Catholic theology they do not express it in terms of temporal punishment or teach that if we have not atoned for our sins by acts of penance we will have to suffer punishment in the fires of purgatory. There is a difference between spiritual growth and punishment for sins. Christ paid the full price for our sins on the Cross. Therefore, I cannot believe in the concept of temporal punishment upon which the doctrine of purgatory is built. I certainly cannot accept the idea of surplus merit and indulgences, because it turns salvation into a matter of earning enough merit to get into heaven.
I am aware that mysticism exists within the Roman Catholic tradition. However, there is no doubt that classical Roman Catholic theology as expressed by Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism places much more value on human reason than traditional Eastern theology. Scholasticism was born in an effort to reconcile the teaching of Aristotle with Christianity. An example of this is the doctrine of transubstantiation which uses the categories of Aristotle to explain the Eucharist. Orthodox also believe that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but make no effort to understand or explain the change, except to say that the Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[twf]

In general, the Eastern fathers teach that God’s wrath and punishment are didactic in purpose, as a dispassionate God would have no purpose in becoming wroth or for exacting punishment against His creations unless it were of benefit to them.

I don’t see anything in your response with which a Latin would disagree. We don’t believe that God’s “wrath” is passionate - as I said earlier, temporal punishment is primarily for our own deification. If we unite said punishments / penance to the cross of Christ, we will grow in holiness. As St. Paul said: Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church… (Col. 1:24).

 

[twf]

The Holy Fathers tell us that we continue our spiritual growth after death. However, unlike traditional Roman Catholic theology they do not express it in terms of temporal punishment or teach that if we have not atoned for our sins by acts of penance we will have to suffer punishment in the fires of purgatory. There is a difference between spiritual growth and punishment for sins. Christ paid the full price for our sins on the Cross. Therefore, I cannot believe in the concept of temporal punishment upon which the doctrine of purgatory is built. I certainly cannot accept the idea of surplus merit and indulgences, because it turns salvation into a matter of earning enough merit to get into heaven.
I am aware that mysticism exists within the Roman Catholic tradition. However, there is no doubt that classical Roman Catholic theology as expressed by Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism places much more value on human reason than traditional Eastern theology. Scholasticism was born in an effort to reconcile the teaching of Aristotle with Christianity. An example of this is the doctrine of transubstantiation which uses the categories of Aristotle to explain the Eucharist. Orthodox also believe that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but make no effort to understand or explain the change, except to say that the Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John W. Morris

Father,
Your comment on Catholics “meriting” salvation leads me to believe that you may still be suffering under your Methodist / Protestant bias towards the Catholic teaching. This is what Protestants constantly accuse Catholics of. In condemning the Protestant heresy of “sola fide” (faith alone), the Council of Trent (and all subsequent Church teachings) was very clear that we are saved by the grace of Christ alone. Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection won for us infinite merits - all that is necessary for our salvation and deification. Christ, however, has given us the gift of freewill and desires that we freely cooperate with His grace in our own salvation. St. Paul commands us to “work out” our salvation with “fear and trembling”. St. James is clear in his epistle that faith without works is useless. In baptism we “put on” Christ and receive the Spirit of sonship…we thus participate, especially through the Eucharist, in the very divine life of Christ. It is only in and through Christ, by virtue of our baptism and our participation in the Eucharistic mystery, that we are able to “merit” by cooperating with Christ’s grace. In John’s Gospel we are told that Christ gave those who believed in Him the power to become the Sons of God. Unlike Protestants we believe that we are not simply declared righteous but rather we are made righteous. Thus our good works, which flow from the grace of Christ working within our hearts, become pleasing to the Father. As branches on the one vine which is Christ we grow good fruit. We thus are said to merit, by our cooperation with grace, in a way that is completely secondary to and dependent upon the sacrifice of Christ. This is clear if you read the decrees of Trent or the modern Catechism. I don’t see how this is fundamentally different than the Eastern concept of synergy. That is all we mean by “merit”.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Fr. John Morris: I understand what you are saying, I think it is just a matter of words and how they are used. I tend to think purgatory is for purification not punishment for ones sins, since if it were a matter of sin one would not end up in heaven. I do not try to understand Transubstantiation of the Eucharist, I only know that it is the real Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. No matter what human words are used no one will be able to explain the mystery, nor any of the mysteries of our faith. Yes, St. Thomas Aquinias tried to just as others tried, Eastern as well as Western Church Fathers.

For myself personally I tend to think that purgatory is a place when is purified so that one can b made perfect just our Heavenly father is perfect. I do not think it punishment for sins since if that were the case one would never get into heaven. I do not understand what you mean by surplus merit, as I have never hard that before. I don’t think there is such an animal so far as I know. Indulgences are as I understand it part of binding and loosing but I understand that when it is given when one does what the indulgence calls for, generally speaking one gives them to those in purgatory so that those being purified can enter heaven sooner, though one an use them for oneself, as it is a grace not from merit nor is it earned, or deserved, but given freely by God through the Church.
Speaking for myself only, I tend more to the spiritual rather than scholasticism, but I understand that St. Thomas Aquines tried to put into words what really can not nor never be expressed in human terms or words. I have seen this in both the Eastern and Western Church Fathers who have tried to express Doctrines and dogma which I think are mysteries that can never be explained using human words. I accept the beliefs because of the Apostles and those who came after them who believed and died for that belief.

I do not try to understand it all, and as much as I like history it was nothing that I relied on in my search for God in my life, it was the faith given to me, a gift from God to respond to Him through Christ and the Holy Spirit. However, I understand where you were coming from and I do not fault you for using history to find where you think you belong.
I tend to look to the spiritual and the mysteries in silence that God might speak and I might understand and be given some little light that brings me ever closer to God. I do not rely on scholasticism for my faith as I said before no human words are ever going to explain these mysteries. I accept that man tried to put into words so that we can understand these mysteries, and try to explain so that one can understand something of the Divine. peace and God bless.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,
Your comment on Catholics “meriting” salvation leads me to believe that you may still be suffering under your Methodist / Protestant bias towards the Catholic teaching. This is what Protestants constantly accuse Catholics of. In condemning the Protestant heresy of “sola fide” (faith alone), the Council of Trent (and all subsequent Church teachings) was very clear that we are saved by the grace of Christ alone. Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection won for us infinite merits - all that is necessary for our salvation and deification. Christ, however, has given us the gift of freewill and desires that we freely cooperate with His grace in our own salvation. St. Paul commands us to “work out” our salvation with “fear and trembling”. St. James is clear in his epistle that faith without works is useless. In baptism we “put on” Christ and receive the Spirit of sonship…we thus participate, especially through the Eucharist, in the very divine life of Christ. It is only in and through Christ, by virtue of our baptism and our participation in the Eucharistic mystery, that we are able to “merit” by cooperating with Christ’s grace. In John’s Gospel we are told that Christ gave those who believed in Him the power to become the Sons of God. Unlike Protestants we believe that we are not simply declared righteous but rather we are made righteous. Thus our good works, which flow from the grace of Christ working within our hearts, become pleasing to the Father. As branches on the one vine which is Christ we grow good fruit. We thus are said to merit, by our cooperation with grace, in a way that is completely secondary to and dependent upon the sacrifice of Christ. This is clear if you read the decrees of Trent or the modern Catechism. I don’t see how this is fundamentally different than the Eastern concept of synergy. That is all we mean by “merit”.

Everything that you wrote above could be written by an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I agree with you completely. If my thinking about Roman Catholic doctrine is influenced by Protestantism, it would not be Methodist, but Lutheranism, because I served as an Orthodox representative to the North American Orthodox Lutheran Dialogue where we concentrated on soteriology. As a result, I did read a lot of Lutheran theology. The Lutheran concept of salvation is conditioned by his reaction to medieval Catholic theology. I will give you that my view of Roman Catholic medieval theology may be conditioned by Luther’s arguments. I am home and do not have my books on theology here, but tomorrow will take some time before Vespers to take a look at some Roman Catholic books and reserve the right to revise my responses to this thread by what I find then. Obviously, I would not presume to tell Catholics what they believe. I may be wrong, but I have the impression that at least during the Middle Ages the west taught a legalistic concept of salvation that emphasized acquiring enough merit to deserve salvation. I have an old pre-Vatican II Baltimore Catechism that compares the treasury of merit with a kind of bank from which the Pope can withdraw merit to give someone an indulgence. To me the doctrine of Temporal Punishment which has its origins as far back as Tertullian seems to teach that we are forgiven as far as not being sent to hell, but to enter heaven, we have to do works of penance to work off the temporal punishment for our sins. I we do not do enough penance, we suffer in the fires of purgatory before we can enter heaven. That view, we Orthodox certainly would reject because we believe that Christ paid the full price or our sins on the Cross. However we also reject the Protestant view of salvation, as a legal fiction through God declares us righteous despite our sins. Like you, we believe that God not only declared us righteous. God makes us righteous by His divine grace. We also reject the Protestant definition of grace as “undeserved merit,” or “unmerited favor.” According to Orthodox theology grace is communion with God, or to put it another way grace is an uncreated and fully divine Energy of God flowing from His Hidden Essence. Because grace is an encounter with God, our condition is change by grace, not just our status as the classical Protestant definition of justification teaches.

Fr. John W. Morris