To know more about Orthodoxy!

[w_stewart]

Thanks for all the responses.

My next question:

What is the official teaching of the Orhodox Churches pertaining to artificial birth controls?

I read somewhere that they allow the use of ABC.

 

[Wesley7]

The first missionaries of the Orthodox Church traveled to the U.S. from Eastern Russia to the Alaskan straits.

 

[theistgal]

w_stewart, just wanted to add this link for you - apparently there is indeed an Orthodox Church in the Philippines:

orthodox.org.ph/content/view/583/1/

St. Andrew’s Theological Seminary in Quezon City (Cathedral Heights 275 E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave., Quezon City Philippines 1112) might be a good place to get answers to your questions.

Good luck!

 

[Harpazo]

Thanks for all the responses.

My next question:

What is the official teaching of the Orhodox Churches pertaining to artificial birth controls?

I read somewhere that they allow the use of ABC.

Hello again. My priest summed up the Orthodox position pretty well in an email he sent to me about 6 months ago. He said:

We have been taught that using contraceptives is not the way to have a Godly marriage, that children are a blessing from God, although you may run into some “modern liberal” Orthodox in America who ignore that. However, as Orthodox we also refrain from marital relations during fasting periods, i.e. Tuesday and Thursday nights (the eves of the Wed and Fri. fast), on any evening before receiving Holy Communion (such as Saturday evening and before the 12 Great Feast days), and during the entire time of the four fasts: Lent, Nativity Fast, Apostles Fast, and Dormition Fast. This adds up to more than half of the year that we abstain, and it seems to me upon cursory inspection that “large” Orthodox families are about half the size of “large” Catholic families. Also, you may know that while women are exclusively breastfeeding (on demand, no supplemental feedings) the hormones act as a natural birth control with about 98% effectiveness. Of course women are only fertile a few days every month, and abstinence during that time is a fairly effective method if needed. However, women are much more “interested” when they are fertile than at other times, so that has its frustrations. Basically though, we need and want more Orthodox babies and families for the sake of our souls (our spiritual growth and responsibility) and theirs.

So, there you have it. You might say that it is a little more strict than the Catholic position, in respect to refraining from marital relations during fast times. You may find that some uninformed Orthodox use it, just like some uninformed Catholics use it. Hope that helps.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[w_stewart]

Thanks for all your responses, especially Harpazo’s.

My next question:

How would Orthodox Churches reconcile their praying for the dead with their disbelief in Purgatory?

 

[Religio71]

Thanks for all your responses, especially Harpazo’s.

My next question:

How would Orthodox Churches reconcile their praying for the dead with their disbelief in Purgatory?

This is a really good question. All I have ever seen is “because it is the apostolic practice” or “because it is in the Bible”, but I would like to know WHY. I have also heard that it is because those in Hell or on the border of Hell can be brought into salvation with the prayers of the saints on earth. Is this true? What is the basis for this belief?

 

[Hesychios]

I heard there are Orthodox Churches here in the country. The Catholic Church reached here in 1521. Protestantism had reached here in the early 1900s if I am not mistaken.

Why had the Orthodoxy reached here only in early 1990s or late 1980s? This gives me the impression that missionary works of Orthodox churches are not that strong and active.

The issue of empire building has to be taken into account. It happens to be a fact we cannot ignore. Orthodox missioners were not permitted within the Spanish empire.

The Orthodox nations were all landlocked in Eastern Europe (with their backs against the vast Asian landmass), and many were under foreign occupation (like the Turkish empire, and also some Catholic nations) for long episodes of their past. The only Orthodox empire of any significance coming into the modern age was the Russian, which is so extensive it crosses eleven time zones (even more when it included Alaska), but everyone knows this was not a sea power. They did a magnificent job of evangelizing in those areas which were open to them. When the missioners moved down the California coast there was active violent opposition.

The French, Portuguese and Spanish empires, with open access to the sea, were well poised during the Mercantile Age to establish themselves in new distant places. You will note that there was no Polish overseas empire, nor Hungarian, and these were powerful Catholic countries. Polish mission priests (also Hungarian and Italian) generally followed their people as they migrated around the world into the lands foreign governments permitted them to settle in. Same for the Orthodox, these people were bound by hostile neighbors for long periods, and generally migrated into countries that already had a native Christian population and could only make the trip when it was permissible according to the local law.

The United States is not really an Orthodox country, so the interlude of USA involvement in the Philippines was going to introduce Protestantism foremost, and more Latin Catholic missioners (Irish-, Polish-, German- Americans) as well (although ideally these should not have been needed, apparently there was some kind of lag in native vocations).

Eastern Christianity of the Catholic and the Orthodox flavours in the Phillippines would then be mostly a result of immigration, and then spreading to the native population from that. Perhaps some disaffected native Catholic priests would be interested in Holy Orthodoxy, and they might be the drivers in any new mission effort (now almost 500 years into the Christian era for the country), but we have to assume that the needs of these people are met for the most part by the established church and new missions are more desperately needed elsewhere.

Now the focus for Orthodox should be on reconciliation with the Latin church, if possible, not competition with it.

You can be sure that if representatives of an Orthodox nation could have arrived in the Phillippines Archipelago before the sixteenth century there would have been vigourous mission activity.

BTW, You will note that there are virtually no Eastern Catholic parishes either. They generally need permission of the local ordinary to set up, unless the Pope establishes a hierarchy for them. In other words a need has to be established (by demonstrating migrants have arrived) before an EC parish will be permitted, that effectively blocks new evangelizing efforts for them. ]

 

[Hesychios]

This is a really good question. All I have ever seen is “because it is the apostolic practice” or “because it is in the Bible”, but I would like to know WHY. I have also heard that it is because those in Hell or on the border of Hell can be brought into salvation with the prayers of the saints on earth. Is this true? What is the basis for this belief?

It’s a good question.

The Orthodox do not have a developed theory, a “one size fits all” theology concerning the deceased.

Certainly we don’t want them to suffer, if that is their fate. We will try to pray you out of Hell if that is necessary (yes, we will try… no guarantees). But there can also be the case that someone who is saved might attain a higher state of bliss, perhaps be closer to the eye of God. We just do not assume that there is punishment as such for any minor sins absolved in the confessional, but our prayers may be effective nonetheless. In other words one might rise to a higher state of divinization.

The biggest objections to the whole complex as formulated in the west is over the Anselmian Satisfaction Theory and the Thomist Treasury of Merits Theory. These were unknown in the early church, they popped up out of the scholastic era as explanations for Christian practice these men felt driven to rationalize. They almost couldn’t help themselves. When these ideas were first introduced to Eastern bishops they were stunned.

Orthodox generally agree that when a sinner is forgiven in confession there is no other satisfaction (payment, or transaction) necessary. It’s done, no dipping into the Merit vault. One might be deservedly punished for something not sincerely confessed, but there is no residual payment due for something God has already forgiven through the practice of sincere confession and contrition.

If the deceased needs a good working over that is God’s doing, there is no system that can explain it. The more we try to explain it, the more likely it will be incorrect.

Think of this… going to meet your Maker is like going to your wedding, or a rare audience with the president. What would be the appropriate preparation for an event like that? Dressing up in fine cloth and jewels, fixing your teeth and styling your hair… or a sound bloody beating?

What is the process of salvation really like?.. hard labor in the mines, or a workout in the gym? Or is it neither? We just don’t know, for any person it can be different.

What we do know is prayer for the departed is good. We don’t reason out the why, we don’t need a theory and we don’t imagine a system. God does what God does, we are not going to box Him in and say “this is what God does and this is why He does it”.

 

[Religio71]

It’s a good question.

The Orthodox do not have a developed theory, a “one size fits all” theology concerning the deceased.

Certainly we don’t want them to suffer, if that is their fate. We will try to pray you out of Hell if that is necessary (yes, we will try… no guarantees). But there can also be the case that someone who is saved might attain a higher state of bliss, perhaps be closer to the eye of God. We just do not assume that there is punishment as such for any minor sins absolved in the confessional, but our prayers may be effective nonetheless. In other words one might rise to a higher state of divinization.

The biggest objections to the whole complex as formulated in the west is over the Anselmian Satisfaction Theory and the Thomist Treasury of Merits Theory. These were unknown in the early church, they popped up out of the scholastic era as explanations for Christian practice these men felt driven to rationalize. They almost couldn’t help themselves. When these ideas were first introduced to Eastern bishops they were stunned.

Orthodox generally agree that when a sinner is forgiven in confession there is no other satisfaction (payment, or transaction) necessary. It’s done, no dipping into the Merit vault. One might be deservedly punished for something not sincerely confessed, but there is no residual payment due for something God has already forgiven through the practice of sincere confession and contrition.

If the deceased needs a good working over that is God’s doing, there is no system that can explain it. The more we try to explain it, the more likely it will be incorrect.

Think of this… going to meet your Maker is like going to your wedding, or a rare audience with the president. What would be the appropriate preparation for an event like that? Dressing up in fine cloth and jewels, fixing your teeth and styling your hair… or a sound bloody beating?

What is the process of salvation really like?.. hard labor in the mines, or a workout in the gym? Or is it neither? We just don’t know, for any person it can be different.

What we do know is prayer for the departed is good. We don’t reason out the why, we don’t need a theory and we don’t imagine a system. God does what God does, we are not going to box Him in and say “this is what God does and this is why He does it”.

thank you for this explanation.

I think what I am really looking for is the Biblical or historical basis for the practice of prayer for the dead. As in, what is the basis for the belief that it could be possible to “pray someone out of Hell”? Isn’t the traditional belief that once you’re in Heaven or Hell it is eternal? What I’m saying is, when I read various Orthodox websites, and I guess from your post as well, it is said that we should pray for the dead because it is good to take care of our brethren, as we do on Earth. However, I’m simply looking for the background on where this belief came from, as in, are there any ancient writings on it. Also, where did this belief that one can be prayed out of Hell come from? So I know you don’t have a whole reason as to “why”, but does that mean that prayer from the dead simply appeared, and it was accepted…because we should accept it?

Sorry, this just seems very…ambiguous.

 

[NoWings]

thank you for this explanation.

I think what I am really looking for is the Biblical or historical basis for the practice of prayer for the dead. As in, what is the basis for the belief that it could be possible to “pray someone out of Hell”? Isn’t the traditional belief that once you’re in Heaven or Hell it is eternal? What I’m saying is, when I read various Orthodox websites, and I guess from your post as well, it is said that we should pray for the dead because it is good to take care of our brethren, as we do on Earth. However, I’m simply looking for the background on where this belief came from, as in, are there any ancient writings on it. Also, where did this belief that one can be prayed out of Hell come from? So I know you don’t have a whole reason as to “why”, but does that mean that prayer from the dead simply appeared, and it was accepted…because we should accept it?

Sorry, this just seems very…ambiguous.

I believe there’s prayer for the dead in the Book of Maccabees, but I could be mistaken.

 

[josie_L]

I believe there’s prayer for the dead in the Book of Maccabees, but I could be mistaken.

Yes it is found in Maccabees, and furthermore, the Jews belief in Sheol can be likened to our belief in purgatory. I think what religio was getting at is that you can’t pray for the dead if they’re already in Hell, and if they’re already in Heaven they wouldn’t need our prayers.

 

[jimmy]

Yes it is found in Maccabees, and furthermore, the Jews belief in Sheol can be likened to our belief in purgatory. I think what religio was getting at is that you can’t pray for the dead if they’re already in Hell, and if they’re already in Heaven they wouldn’t need our prayers.

That is a simplistic argument. Just as an example, you can take the words of P. Benedict in his book Called to Communion. He speaks about the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God as presented in the gospels and in biblical scholarship over the last couple centuries. He concludes that purification for the kingdom is part of the kingdom. Considering that then why is it that someone has to go to some third place called purgatory before going to heaven? Maybe the very judgement of God is cleansing? The fathers spoke of the divine nature as divine fire which cleansed the soul and burned away the impurities. Maybe through contact with the divine nature our nature becomes purified?

 

[josie_L]

That is a simplistic argument. Just as an example, you can take the words of P. Benedict in his book Called to Communion. He speaks about the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God as presented in the gospels and in biblical scholarship over the last couple centuries. He concludes that purification for the kingdom is part of the kingdom. Considering that then why is it that someone has to go to some third place called purgatory before going to heaven? Maybe the very judgement of God is cleansing? The fathers spoke of the divine nature as divine fire which cleansed the soul and burned away the impurities. Maybe through contact with the divine nature our nature becomes purified?

And maybe that contact with the divine fire is called purg (purge sins) atory?

 

[josie_L]

That is a simplistic argument. Just as an example, you can take the words of P. Benedict in his book Called to Communion. He speaks about the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God as presented in the gospels and in biblical scholarship over the last couple centuries. He concludes that purification for the kingdom is part of the kingdom. Considering that then why is it that someone has to go to some third place called purgatory before going to heaven? Maybe the very judgement of God is cleansing? The fathers spoke of the divine nature as divine fire which cleansed the soul and burned away the impurities. Maybe through contact with the divine nature our nature becomes purified?

Are you saying that P. Benedict doesn’t believe in purgatory? And what happened to Sheol or the prison that spirits were held, does it still exist?

 

[jimmy]

And maybe that contact with the divine fire is called purg (purge sins) atory?

If we want to reduce purgatory to that it is fine but is it an honest reading of the tradition of the west? Doesn’t the western tradition seperate the beatific vision from purgatory? Purgatory consists in the hope that we will receive the beatific vision but we are temporarily deprived of it while we are being purged.

 

[jimmy]

Are you saying that P. Benedict doesn’t believe in purgatory? And what happened to Sheol or the prison that spirits were held, does it still exist?

First, Sheol has nothing to do with purgatory. Sheol was the place of the dead, it was not a place of cleansing for those who were bound for heaven.

No, I was using P. Benedicts words as a jumping off point to explain that it isn’t as simple as saying those in hell can’t use our prayers and those in heaven don’t need them therefore there must be purgatory. Deductive logic can’t explain salvation and you can’t make new dogmas based on deductive logic.

 

[w_stewart]

So the Eastern Catholic Churches share the theology of the Orthodox Churches regarding purgatory?

 

[josie_L]

If we want to reduce purgatory to that it is fine but is it an honest reading of the tradition of the west? Doesn’t the western tradition seperate the beatific vision from purgatory? Purgatory consists in the hope that we will receive the beatific vision but we are temporarily deprived of it while we are being purged.

In revelation 21:25 We are told that in Heaven “nothing impure will ever enter it”, if upon our deaths we still have some sins of which need to be purified it most surely not be in Heaven.

Originally Posted by jimmy
That is a simplistic argument. Just as an example, you can take the words of P. Benedict in his book Called to Communion. **He speaks about the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God as presented in the gospels and in biblical scholarship over the last couple centuries. He concludes that purification for the kingdom is part of the kingdom. **Considering that then why is it that someone has to go to some third place called purgatory before going to heaven? Maybe the very judgement of God is cleansing? The fathers spoke of the divine nature as divine fire which cleansed the soul and burned away the impurities. Maybe through contact with the divine nature our nature becomes purified?

Now you haven’t given me much to go on with your above statement, but one thing I can conclude is that you are misunderstanding the pope’s words, for there is no way that he is suggesting that purgatory is not as the Church has decreed in the Cathechism. Here is an explanation for the meaning of the “Kingdom of God/Heaven” (taken from New Advent).

In the New Testament the speedy advent of this kingdom is the one theme: “Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”, said the Baptist, and Christ’s opening words to the people do but repeat that message. At every stage in His teaching the advent of this kingdom, its various aspects, its precise meaning, the way in which it is to be attained, form the staple of His discourses, so much so that His discourse is called “the gospel of the kingdom”. And the various shades of meaning which the expression bears have to be studied. In the mouth of Christ the “kingdom” means not so much a goal to be attained or a place – though those meanings are by no means excluded; cf. Matthew 5:3; 11:2, etc. – it is rather a tone of mind (Luke 17:20-21), it stands for an influence which must permeate men’s minds if they would be one with Him and attain to His ideals; cf. Luke 9:55. It is only by realizing these shades of meaning that we can do justice to the parables of the kingdom with their endless variety. At one time the “kingdom” means the sway of grace in men’s hearts, e.g. in the parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26 sq.; cf. Matthew 21:43); and thus, too, it is opposed to and explained by the opposite kingdom of the devil (Matthew 4:8; 12:25-26). At another time it is the goal at which we have to aim, e.g. Matthew 3:3. Again it is a place where God is pictured as reigning (Mark 14:25). In the second petition of the “Our Father” – “Thy kingdom come” – we are taught to pray as well for grace as for glory. **As men grew to understand the Divinity of Christ they grew to see that the kingdom of God was also that of Christ – it was here that the faith of the good thief excelled: “Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.” So, too, as men realized that this kingdom stood for a certain tone of mind, and saw that this peculiar spirit was enshrined in the Church,they began to speak of the Church as “the kingdom of God”; **cf. Colossians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Apocalypse 1:6-9 and 5:10, etc. The kingdom was regarded as Christ’s and He presents it to the Father; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:23-28; 2 Timothy 4:1. The kingdom of god means, then, the ruling of God in our hearts; it means those principles which separate us off from the kingdom of the world and the devil; it means the benign sway of grace; it means the Church as that Divine institution whereby we may make sure of attaining the spirit of Christ and so win that ultimate kingdom of God Where He reigns without end in “the holy city, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” (Revelation 21:2).

newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm

I think you’ve wrongly concluded as to what the meaning of the word “kingdom” means with regard to Pope Benedict’s book. From your above statement you’ve understood it as something along these lines “He concludes that purification for Heaven is part of the Heaven.” If this is what you believe he (the pope) meant then you are wrong.

 

[josie_L]

So the Eastern Catholic Churches share the theology of the Orthodox Churches regarding purgatory?

This is what I got from wikipedia on what the eastern Catholic churches believe:

Eastern Catholic Churches

The Eastern Catholic Churches are Catholic Churches sui iuris of Eastern tradition, in full communion with the Pope. There are however some differences between the Latin Church and some of the Eastern Catholic Churches on aspects of purgatory. The Eastern Catholic Churches of Greek tradition do not generally use the word “purgatory”, but agree that there is a “final purification” for souls destined for heaven, and that prayers can help the dead who are in that state of “final purification”. In general, neither the members of the Latin Church nor the members of these Eastern Catholic Churches regard these differences as major points of dispute, but see them as minor nuances and differences of tradition. A treaty that formalized the admission of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church into the full communion of the Roman Catholic Church stated: “We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church”,[47] implying, in the opinion of a theologian of that Church, that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “purgatory”, while there is full agreement on the essentials.[48] Between the Latin Church and some other Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, there is no disagreement about any aspect of the doctrine of purgatory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory

 

[josie_L]

First, Sheol has nothing to do with purgatory. Sheol was the place of the dead, it was not a place of cleansing for those who were bound for heaven.

No, I was using P. Benedicts words as a jumping off point to explain that it isn’t as simple as saying those in hell can’t use our prayers and those in heaven don’t need them therefore there must be purgatory. Deductive logic can’t explain salvation and you can’t make new dogmas based on deductive logic.

I’m not the one making new dogmas (or for that matter creating a new understanding of what praying for the dead means in the Catholic tradition) Jimmy. Furthermore, if Sheol/prison of spirits did exist this means that a place apart from Heaven (where God resides) and Hell (where the devil and demons are damned) existed, so why is it so untenable in your mind to believe that a place called purgatory exists, especially in light of the fact that no unclean thing can enter Heaven and Hell is for those eternally lost?